neve 


Wty 
‘fx 
v5! ty ’ 


ty 
LS 
Se 
rae 
eae 


a 


— 

= 

= 
Tk 


elenl eet eetems 
nes 
Senne hos 
~~, renee: 
seat 5 
maw Sy = 
Sree eSer ees he. 
~~ 
Picts ty <4" 


se 


evr 
SAM Kd 
> Wie 


a 
watt 
Det ena 


eet 
= 
=! 


Se 
eee ee 
“ont, detoig 
at ne 
TaSw hee MeL 


rae 


cate 
sez 


a 


2. 


~, 
a) 


Hsu 
eft tt 


te 
it 


sos 
oes 
anew” 
See 


SSS 
ehh 


=; 
. com Sa: 
Se 
= 
a 
Se 
no 
eee 
or 
nade oy 
=~ en “a 
ae 


ee 
Soe 
Soo 
ae 
So 
So ese 
<, 
egevteee 


ae 


\ , OX) 
BOSS Ey yy fel ony x 
SY} ‘) ee ; 
FUN 
OOK) Rn 
atin ye ties 
a 


Iitig aan 


seF 2 


oe 


eatiaany 
See 
Fe 
ze 
Cebea eeuce cea 
Na Tote 5 oO. 
oe ye eS, 


ato 
2 


pa ee) 
sree 


on 
oe 


se ee 
Pre eins 
ee ee 
< 


ee 


1, 


ay 


a 


EUR AleL 
#3 ARN ah : 
enicer iy’ 


4) 
thy: 1) a ) Me 


es 


Fina a 
“* 
sett 


at 
Ser 
Ageia 


a Pe 
Aor 
ete io 
tint 
Pats 


“ 


¥K) 
iM 


a 
= 


a 
rate lai 
Steerer 


CY FER) EL 
Wat Ave i fou 
24 tt eth ish 


™ 


nae 


Patel 
ae 
notes 
Plies 
vets 
Sa, 


Soot 


Pe 


eee 
ate 
1, 


Pe 


Kea zt mb AOD 

‘ ‘ Ce ASS Myers) CURA WR rh yiss iel 
: Anas Hr OT UUAR NN Wand 
th 

Cra TAN 
ite ie : 

i 


k ; A 
ery et yt 
ah) + My 


ee 


se 


EES 


eae 


PISI 


ey 

Kat hn 
Realy REE Oy Lanny ade ck 
PANY CES 


We 


ose 
ne 
ross 
Ors 
a 
Sa 
oh, 
ee 


7 a. 
arta tns 
~ 
nore 
Foes 
rs 
le 
aot ee 
= 
< 
ai 
< 
ES 


= 
=a 
ane 
aos 
ran 
re 
res 
pes 
s 


Sere 


aS 


LAY 
: 
‘ 


a 
we 
Ron 
+4 


, ” 
; SHIN 
ANY hehe Mi ) aR 
NAVE NTO ART RECTUS CTH ALS OSU MUS 
Shh yet nt) ay) AO vas STI ah ef 
A DRE EES te ED 
! BAECS T il 
hy NAY ayy POSIT DX ah shi r 


ho 
ARS, 


< 


¢ ‘ K 


eae 
ree 
ae 
< 


ry) 


Aes 
- eso >. ah 
7S 


ein 
ie. 
PES 
eh 
reece 


AN, 


See 
si Cs 


a get 2. 
fee 


steers 
Fle es ae 
SS SD 

ers Ps 
LER NORE 


3 ANERE 
3 My (ot) %) th ue 
es 


oo 


5 
egieole 


ss 


BALI hs it 
RASTA HAO FARINA BND TPR } SENAY : ' ; KENNY 4 : ) ; ao te) 
SURAT AE SE + ; AUN th a! nS. Weta ttanta ins EeKb ys 
b, ti x We a) ‘ i ann HENAN : Ws : ve % ree \ arn 5 ROE \ 
, WEEE thy KEES shady PEO ay aS,’ ees db As Sa , Met) YEAS ERENCES ELAN tah i) a) ‘ 
{ we \ 


cy 
: * 
ARRAN TAUMRCC RAGAN ms i 
Kt aa SRN 
y : » a 


* 


os 


Ve 
‘ ete P 

Sta ¥ MoV et tye stg oak ANd Ny 
Erpnabapaey yeah ia Yl 

i HOO 


oe, 
ea ore 
Spt pl ig hig oe 
eons 
Sore 


* 
AY & 


Hon KURA 
sn NSN 


2; 
= 


eer 


= as 


q ey 
yh LAN I ed yy 
USDA NESE 


red 


(eR 
at 


a econ 





wy 
a 


B A280. Jo Ad noes 

AIVISLO A Eo Mi Leones Site | 
195 5. 

The Jew's struggle for | 
religious and civil liberts 








THOMAS KENNEDY 


THE JEW’S STRUGGLE 


FOR 


RELIGIOUS AND 
CIVIL LIBERTY 


IN 


MARYLAND 


BY \y. 
E. MILTON ALTFELD 


BALTIMORE 
M. CURLANDER 
1924 


CoryrRiGHTED, 1924 


E. MILTON ALTFELD 


TO 
MY MOTHER 


THIS WORK IS AFFECTIONATELY 
DEDICATED 





g 
te ; 
Oe 
\ « 
‘ 
_ 
. 
, 
] 
. 
6 
“f 
{ 
© 
7 
, 





Y “oe . le Bae 
ae » he "i 
e) é = i Le 
7 @; ' 4 . "\ 
s wey i 
4 ‘ > Fi . 
iw @ a we” Fy 
4 , J) 
i, > } 
ihe Pade 
Fi he } iuee { if ) ae 
8 
‘ A] a. 
yt } 
‘ \ 
h s 
" p ’ 
‘ 
' 
i 
7) i me | \ 
’ Ae “- 









Shulee gs y Jey 


> 
? 
4 
- 
ae 
~ 
* 
~* 
a 
- be 4 ¥. ‘a: 
ae 


. ' 7 
-— ( ' ? kr uy 
a ‘ ‘i. 
/ i ‘ 
| 
vy 
{ . “t Pe 
i Fi ‘ \ ri 
. ‘y ' 4u.! 
: “9 « ee m] , r ’ Wie 
: - + POS te ip ‘ Best ee : e ( 
i : re) be 
bs ass ‘ ; 7 1% 4 
\ - [aaa | 
; i Nea eas 
i : ; * ‘ ¢ ‘ verte 
4 i 
| ahs cai Md “ ye ans) ‘Diels outa 
i bist si uy Tx ” ao. 
; ve Sb gi kt » res ce A io ) ale \ 
i 4 + ” 
, mu a , A” Me 
: be | 
é é ‘ A 
' T¥ ' 
‘ 1 ; j ' ‘ 
] z " 
‘ iy F) Ly : 
o * 4 " oa VEE A 
is I > A, 
‘ ' i uy 
| ’ ai ¥ 
: a sete. 
_ 
»# rr j ‘i y =" ee 
4 j t i ‘, tr At : ( i 
vee Mey) lee eA 
¢t . ’ i F ) “y Na? ue i i" f 
is ae | i hm oe f 
‘ ‘ Pod | is ae ¥ 
é By ' foe i 
| Late + Ae 
] 7. i bl : Haine 
i Ae 
ry ‘ 
; \ 
~» 
i 
,«* 
: py ae 
‘ 
\ “ei 
a) 
, i” . 
® 
" sue? 


PREFACE 


Glancing through old legislative records that I chanced to 
pick up while serving as a member of the House of Delegates 
in 1914, I became attracted to the subject of the ‘‘Jew’’ bill 
which agitated the citizenry of the State a century ago. 
Later, while scouting for news for the Baltimore American, 
I heard an impressive talk on the subject of early Jewish 
disabilities by Philip L. Sykes, a prominent member of the 
Baltimore Bar and at that time a student of the Johns 
Hopkins University. Many talks with Mr. Sykes on Jewish 
and communal subjects followed and his devotion to Jewish 
causes inspired me to pursue the subject further. 

When [I returned to civilian life from the World War in 
1918 I devoted my efforts towards raising money for the 
purchase of a monument to be erected over the grave of 
Thomas Kennedy in Hagerstown. This project was success- 
ful and the monument was accordingly dedicated in the 
presence of Mr. Kennedy’s living descendants and state and 
eity officials. This man, although he knew not Jew yet 
knew the principles of humanity and brotherhood. If our 
people understood the tremendous effort put forth by 
Kennedy and the obstacles he had to overcome, surely they 
would arrange an annual pilgrimage to his grave. 

I desire to extend my thanks to the press of Balti- 
more for permitting access to their files; the Maryland 
Historical Society, Peabody Library, St. Mary’s County 
officials, Land Record Office Commissioner, Mrs. J. Findlay, 
oreat-grand-daughter of Thomas Kennedy, B. 8. Appelstein, 
Baltimore City Librarian; Charles Fickus, Prof. Jacob H. 
Hollander, of the Johns Hopkins University, Senator William 
Curran and especially Mr. Sykes for his helpful suggestions. 

Much pleasure was derived by me in gathering the data 
for this volume; if my readers receive a small portion of the 
enjoyment that was mine, in its preparation, I shall feel amply 
compensated for the labor that was entailed by this task. 

EK. M. A. 
Baltimore, April 2, 1924. 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
In 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/jewsstruggleforr0Oaltt 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER 


I THE COLONY OF MARYLAND . 


II ‘‘A SET OF PEOPLE CALLED JEWS” 
III ISRAEL’S CHAMPION APPEARS . 


IV THE FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 
V FIRST JEWS TO HOLD OFFICE . 


VI A SPIRIT OF TOLERATION . 


VII DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY . 


VIII THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 
INDEX 


PAGER 










a! 
| i in 
aly yy + P 
R as ee as a | oo 
i : aye dg mM . ea 
SUSE 7. AN y CAPENE } 
' the ( i . Lu \ an . 
hal a SL Ws ane 
npr ahs rors 
C ' Wi ay bya vee \ 
e o) % iT - 
oy 1 Aree: 
rut | ass 
4 ¥ are 
, i te 4 % ‘ at 
44 9 A * Fy he 
Cd Fah ¥ Ghhe | 
‘a 7 4 ¥ 
ELVA PE RDIIY OK 
La + iy Le, by) . Ayes 
. i. ‘1 inh “hi A a iy iy ‘i ph ty 
oe oe: 1 > 
-) bee nt A aiden th 
‘uni oh vine ae hs i ok ails 
: pa oh arin). Ws Siig one ts 
ih TNT eager 
Sirk) PN a aR Ai vif 
ia wie’ picu% tab batt, iG i: me, 
‘i A 
es Fe ney mes ys enter 
j 7 i ye ae +4 easy . eT ) 
I y 
4 : fw f ‘ a eye rf ir. ands ae (eed 
/ yy har an i 
; + hed Rill ads a en 
z ay . 
4 t “Tt by f 
e | th ] a . 
~ "9 2 ya? 
’ JPR »! 7 + ty ig 
; ae ee: 
sa ath, hae 
hei ‘Hbel t 
; ; 6 Aa 
' , a | a =A 
ya Solagaleae 
’ : lay i. 
\ ‘ Wy a i at ‘ 
CB ay ba rhs . 
we a ; 7 7 
, PSS : Put ’ 
? i rm C > ‘ 
i. Peedi . 
, 4 UMS F), ) a ‘Ee ry 
’ Ay mee 
7 ‘ am & hv 


Hy 
4 b 4 104 
. ; oy 
A ‘ ‘ 
: 7 ks 
” , 
7 [ 19 ; 
af ‘ é ei ’ 
a f i Z bh ‘ fl 
i a | 
m i * i Piet 
feb re iad 
oN ut ee ae 





CHAPTER I 


THE COLONY OF MARYLAND 


In 1633 the Ark and the Dove, carrying 200 adventurous 
souls sailed into the Chesapeake Bay. These men of daring 
and industry formed the province of Maryland. It was in 
a time when Catholics in England were not permitted to hold 
publie office, nor educate their children in their faith. Crom- 
well, as minister to Henry the VIII had given the order for 
the trial and execution of offenders. Hus had been burned, 
Savanarola put to death, the bones of St. Thomas a Becket 
exhumed and burned, Charles I executed, the ashes of 
Wycliffe scattered to the sea. 

In New England deserters were scourged and exiled. In 
Virginia the Episcopalians exacted legislation for the sup- 
pression of Presbyterians, Friends and Puritans. 

The historic Toleration Act passed in the Province of 
Maryland in 1649, was, therefore, an important step towards 
the freedom of conscience. The Act provided that ‘‘No one 
within the Province professing to believe in Jesus Christ 
should be in any way troubled, molested, or discountenanced 
for his or her religion or in the free exercise thereof.’’ Ban- 
eroft in speaking of the colony says: ‘‘Its history is the 
history of benevolence, gratitude, and _ toleration—here 
religious liberty obtained a home, its only home in the world. 
Every other country had persecuting laws, till through the 
benign administration of the government of Maryland no 
person professing to believe in Jesus Christ was permitted to 
be molested on account of religion.’’ 

The problem of religious liberty in the early years of the 
colony was confined to the various sects among the Christians. 
There had been no single influx of Jews such as took place 


in Charleston, Savannah, Newport and New York. Only a 
1 


2 THE COLONY OF MARYLAND 


few Jewish names appear in the early provincial records. 
Among them are: Mathias de Sousa (1639), Mathias de 
Costa, Isaac de Barrethe, Hester Cordia, David Fereira, and 
Jacob Leat. 

The first Jew in the colony of whose faith we have definite 
knowledge is Jacob Lumbrozo. Lumbrozo came to Maryland 
from Portugal. He was one of the first medical men in 
Maryland, and for a number of years was one of the 
important figures in the economic life of the community. 

Court orders bearing date of December 30, 1657, are issued 
to Lumbrozo for the recovery of a debt of four hundred 
pounds of tobacco. At least nine judgments and attach- 
ments issued from the physician during the next twelve- 
month. The manuscript records of the Maryland Land Office 
reveal some of the activities of Lumbrozo after 1633, during 
the latter part of his life. Letters of denization had been 
issued to him on September 10, 1633. This had the effect 
of changing his status from that of an alien who could only 
institute civil proceedings in the courts, to that of a semi- 
naturalized citizen, with the privileges of a native or English- 
born subject, including the right of land settlement. The 
very day after this newly acquired prerogative there are 
records showing his demand for lands ‘‘for his own transpor- 
tation and that of his wife Elizabeth.’’ 

Of singular interest is the will of Lumbrozo probated in 
the office of the Register of Wills at Annapolis. It is dated 
September 24, 1665, and is a document of considerable 
length. There is nothing in the record indicating an 
absence of his faith, simply reading: —‘‘I bequeath my sould 
to its Creator assuredly believing that he will in merey look 
upon it and restore it to Eternal rest and my body to the 
Earth to decent Sepulture.’’ 

Whether the wife of Lumbrozo was a Jewess will probably 
never be known. That her name was Elizabeth and that she 
arrived in the province in 1662 has been established. If she 
were a Jewess, it is reasonably certain that she must have 
come from England. The frequency of the name of Eliza- 
beth in many of the court and provincial records indicate 


THE COLONY OF MARYLAND B 


that she was not of his faith and that the marriage occurred 
after her arrival in the province. His references to a sister 
in the will by the name of Rebecca, living in Holland, 
establishes a definite connection with that country and 
reveals the possibility of South American immigration and 
affiliation with established Jewish colonization movements. 
Lumbrozo died in May, 1666, without issue. 

More interesting than the life of Lumbrozo itself, is his 
historic trial for questioning the divinity of Christ. The 
proceedings were brought under the Toleration Act of 1649, 
which lke the blue laws today, had apparently not been 
rigidly enforced. 

The proceedings taken from the records of the provincial 
court, Liber 8S. 1658-1662. Judgments, pages 159-160, are 
as follows: 

‘‘At a Provincial Court, held at St. Marys on Wednesday, 
this 23rd February, 1658. 

‘*Present—Josias Fendall, Esq., Governor; Philip Calvert, 
Esq., Secretary; Mr. Robert Clarke; Mr. Baker Brooks; Dr. 
Luke Barber. 

‘‘Was called before the board, Jacob Lumbrozo, and 
charged by his Lordship’s Attorney for uttering words of 
blasphemy against our Blessed Saviour, Jesus Christ. 

‘“‘The deposition of John Hoffsett, aged 44 years, or there- 
abouts, sayeth this 19th day of February, 1658: 

‘““That, about half a year since, this deponent being at ye 
house of Mr. Richard Preston, and there meeting with Jacob 
Lumbrozo, he, this deponent, and the said Lumbrozo falling 
into discourse concerning our Blessed Saviour, Christ, his 
resurrection, telling ye said Lumbrozo that he was more 
than man, as did appear by his resurrection. To which the 
said Lumbrozo answered, that his disciples stole him away. 
Then this deponent replied, yt no man ever did such 
miracles as he. To which ye said Lumbrozo answered, that 
such works might be done by necromancy or sorcery, or 
words to that purpose. And this deponent replied to ye said 
Lumbrozo, yt he supposed yt, ye said Lumbrozo took Christ 
to be a necromancer, To which ye said Lumbrozo answered 


4 THE COLONY OF MARYLAND 


nothing but laughed. And further this deponent sayeth 
nothing. 
‘‘Jurat die et anno supradict. cor.. me, 
‘* HENRY COURSEY.’’ 


‘‘T, Richard Preston, Jr., do testify yt, about June or 
July last past, coming from Thomas Thomas’s, in company 
with Josias Cole and ye Jew Doctor, known by ye name of 
Jacob Lumbrozo, the said Josias Cole asked ye said Lum- 
brozo, whether ye jews did look for a Messiah? And ye said 
Lumbrozo answered, yes. Then ye said Cole asked him, 
what He was that was crucified at Jerusalem? And ye said 
Lumbrozo answered, He was a man. Then ye said Cole 
asked him, how did He do all His miracles? And ye said 
Lumbrozo answered, He did them by ye Art Magic. Then 
ye said Cole asked him, how His disciples did so ye same 
miracles, after He was crucified? And ye said Lumbrozo 
answered, that He taught him His art. And further saith 
1X0) aad 

‘‘This was declared before me, as in the presence of God, 
that it is true this 21st of February, 1658.’’ 

‘The said Lumbrozo saith: that he had some talk with 
those persons, and willed by them to declare his opinion, and 
by his profession, a Jew, he answered to some particular 
demands then urged. And as to that of miracles done by art 
magic he declared what remains written concerning Moses 
and ye Magicians of Egypt. But said not anything 
secoffingly, or in derogation of Him, Christians acknowledge 
for the Messiah. 

“‘It is ordered, that ye said Lumbrozo remain in ye 
Sheriff’s custody, until he put in security, body for body, to 
make answer to what shall be laid to his charge concerning 
those blasphemous words and speeches, at ye next Provisional 
Court; and yt the persons be then present to testify. viva 
voce, in Court. 

“*Mittimus,—To ye Sheriff of St. Mary’s County, according 
to the order Supradict.’’ 

N. B. The reader will observe, that Ri. Preston, a Quaker, 
simply declares. 


THE COLONY OF MARYLAND 5 


In consequence of the general pardon accompanying the 
proclamation in favor of Richard, the son of the Lord 
Proprietor issued a few days after the accusation, Lumbrozo 
was released from the custody of the Sheriff and the case 
never again came to trial. 

The antipathy and prejudice in the province was not 
directed against the Jew alone. The hand of Protestant was 
raised against Catholic in a disturbing and alarming manner. 
At times lovers of liberty doubted the wisdom of referring 
to the province as ‘‘The Land of the Sanctuary.’’ In the 
records of the High Provincial Court, a case is preserved 
which sheds much light upon the domestic, social, and religious 
history of the period. Father Fitzherbert, a Roman 
Catholic priest, was charged with practicing his religion and 
attempting to bring into the fold erring members. His 
defense under the Toleration Act was that ‘‘Preaching and 
teaching was the free exercise of every churchman’s 
religion.’’? The opinion of the board was that the priest 
‘‘had neither exercised rebellion nor mutiny to utter 
words.’’ 

Toleration and coercion alternated frequently in the 
provinee. Maryland became Episcopalian in 1692 and 
church membership becoming prerequisite to citizenship in 
the colony. 

As in the present time, the Jews who came to the province 
flocked to the larger towns; this is reflected in the Annapolis 
charter granted in 1708. The charter conferred the right 
of suffrage on all persons who possessed a certain amount of 
property. The only formality required was an oath of 
loyalty to the city. 

In the year 1715 the Legislature passed an act providing 
that an oath ending ‘‘upon the true faith of Christian,’’ 
should be administered to all persons enjoying or who might 
subsequently enjoy any office or place of trust within the 
province. In 1716, a stronger religious test was enacted ; 
the oath was styled one of allegiance, abhorrence and 
abjuration. A Catholic who adhered to his faith could not 
readily take the oath; incidentally, the Jew was barred even 
more effectually. Ancient prejudices had a strong influence 


6 THE COLONY OF MARYLAND 


over the minds of the rulers of the colony and the Catholics 
because of their large numbers felt their disabilities keenly. 

The Toleration Act of 1649 was sgmewhat modified by the 
Act of 1728, in that the death penalty for denying the 
divinity of Christ was not to be imposed until the third 
offense. The first offense conditioned that the guilty person 
was to be bored through the tongue and fined; and the second 
offense rendered one liable to be stigmatized by the burning 
of the letter B in the forehead. Until after the adoption of 
the Constitution this act remained in force, although there 
are no records of its actual enforcement. 

It must be said to the credit of the Catholics in Maryland 
that when they were in power they showed far more liberality 
in civil and religious matters than either the Puritans or 
Episcopalians. This is evidenced by the Act of 1676 render- 
ing perpetual the Toleration Act of 1649. 

The Catholics in Maryland were made to suffer terrible 
persecution following the Revolution of 1688 when William 
and Mary succeeded to the British throne following James II. 
In the year 1692 an act was passed establishing the church 
of England in Maryland. By an act of assembly passed 
in 1696 this law was repealed. His majesty dissented to 
this act. In 1702 an act was passed at Annapolis providing 
for the establishment of religious worship in the. Province 
according to the church of England and for the mainte- 
nance of Ministers. This act continued in force until the 
Revolutionary War. It also provided that all taxables 
should pay forty pounds of tobacco to the Minister of the 
parish. The act provided further that Protestant dis- 
senters should be exempted from~penalties or forfeitures 
on account of their dissenting. At the same time laws were 
passed ‘‘To prevent the growth of Popery.’’ In 1716 an 
act was. passed for the better security of the peace and 
safety of his Lordship’s Government and Protestant inter- 
est’’ this law proseribing Catholics altogether from office. 
There is no doubt that it was this measure which gave 
birth to the origin of the religious test and which 
prevented the Jews from holding office for many years. 


Ming fe yar 


he 
Pas oS vt 


un = res 
ae) mh os cn fim. ‘ 
ny: | ; 


i av) 


a 
a 


i 
y, 








THOMAS KENNEDY S$ MONUMENT 
HAGERSTOWN, MD. 


THE COLONY OF MARYLAND 7 


Catholics were to be disfranchised completely for at the 
session of 1718 an act was passed which after complaining of 
the “‘inerease of professed Papists and apprehensive that 
Catholics’? would so increase in the province as well as in 
the City of Annapolis it provided ‘‘that all professed Papists 
whatsoever, be and are hereby declared incapable of giving 
their vote in any election of a delegate or delegates, unless 
they first qualify themselves by taking and subscribing the 
oath of abjuration and declaration. To prevent the increase 
of Catholics twenty shillings sterling was imposed as a duty 
on all Irish Servants brought to Maryland by land or water. 
This section was later repealed as to Protestants but an 
additional duty of twenty shillings current money was 
imposed on Catholics and to discover them the oath of 
abjuration was to be administered, and when lands were 
taxed to raise supplies for public expenses those of Catholics 
were taxed double the sum paid by Protestants. And to 
cap the climax, the finest sensibilities of the human heart 
and conscience were outraged by an act passed in 1715, by 
which the children of a Catholic widow, or one who 
intermarried with a Catholic could be torn from her arms, 
taken from her protection, and put under the guardian 
care of a Protestant, to be brought up in that religious 
faith. 

The act was persecution with a vengeance and will forever 
remain a blot upon the escutcheon of this fair State and when 
one considers the fact that these iniquitous laws were passed 
in the name of Christianity and for the support of religion 
one becomes reconciled to the mouthings of the bigots of our 
own day. The history of the province shows that for nearly 
sixty years the Catholics were held in religious bondage. 
The day of victory for our Catholic brethren came at last 
when America began her fight for Independence. No 
people in Maryland were more ardent and heroic in offering 
their blood and property during the War of the Revolution ; 
none were more patriotic or zealous in fighting for the 
principles of 1776. The religious test as to Catholics was 
abolished; the church of England was no longer the estab- 


8 THE COLONY OF MARYLAND 


lished church and taxation for its exclusive support was 
abolished. 

There is little doubt that it was to satisfy the Catholies of 
Maryland that the 35th article of the declaration of rights 
was inserted, to wit, ‘‘that no other test or qualification ought 
to be required, or admission to any office of trust or profit 
than such oath of support and. fidelity to this state, and such 
oath of office as shall be directed by this Convention or the 
Legislature of this State and a declaration of a belief in the 
Christian religion.’’ It can be presumed that had ‘‘no other 
test’’—no other religious qualification existed previously to 
the Revolution in Maryland no test would have been required, 
other than an oath of fidelity to the State. This is so as 
evidenced from the fact that religious tests were not required 
in any other State except Massachusetts. 

That the thinking men and enlightened minds of Maryland 
were happy to see proscription of the Catholics abolished and 
persecution ended is revealed by the fact that of the dis- 
tinguished men who signed the Declaration of Independence 
Charles Carroll, of Carrollton, was a Catholie and the second 
sovernor under the new constitution, Thomas Sim Lee, was 
also a Catholic. Some years later when the lovers of liberty 
and freedom made war upon the religious test which was 
to liberate the Jews of this State from the shackles of bigotry 
none were more ardent and loyal in the State than the 
Catholics. 


CHAPTER II 
““A SET OF PEOPLE CALLED JEWS”’ 


The spirit of liberty which prompted the Declaration of 
Independence was abroad in the land but so deeply was the 
idea of the connection between church and State imbedded 
in the minds of the colonists in Maryland that they could 
not forego making Christianity the recognized religion of 
the State. Though there was no direct provision in the 
first constitution of the State adopted in 1777 against the 
Jew, it vouchsafed no rights to the Jew. While the Bill of 
Rights admitted in one breath that it is the duty of every 
man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most 
acceptable to Him, in the other, it assured protection and 
religious liberty only to Christians. In another clause, it 
was provided that a declaration of belief in the Christian 
religion should be made by anyone desiring admission to 
any office of trust or profit in the State. A similar decla- 
ration was required by the first naturalization act passed in 
1779. Several acts passed later conferred many of the rights 
of citizenship on persons who immigrated into Maryland; 
the restriction, however, in regards to holding office in the 
State, and the provision assuring protection to persons pro- 
fessing the Christian religion was still in foree. Not until 
this Commonwealth ratified the Constitution of the United 
States and Congress passed a uniform naturalization law 
under it could a Jew who lived here become a citizen of 
the United States. Though he could thereafter hold office 
under the United States Government, he was still ineligible 
to take part in the government of the State. The struggle 
for this right which lasted for more than a quarter of a 
century attracted the attention of thinking people through- 


out the entire country: the bitter and long-continuing 
9 


10 ‘(, SET OF PEOPLE CALLED JEWS’’ 


battle brought Maryland into ill-repute with her sister-states. 

The first attempt to remove this disability of the Jew was 
made in 1797 when Solomon Etting, Bernard Gratz and 
others, sent a petition to the Legislature setting forth that 
‘‘they are a set of people called Jews and that they are 
thereby deprived of many of the invaluable rights of citizen- 
ship and praying that they be placed upon the same footing 
with other good citizens.’’ 

The committee to whom the petition was referred reported 
that the request appeared to be reasonable on its face; 
nevertheless, it involved an important constitutional question 
and it therefore submitted to the Legislature the propriety 
of taking the subject up for general consideration at the 
advanced stage of the session. In 1801 a similar petition was 
referred to a committee and apparently got no further. The 
following year the effort was renewed with the result that a 
bill was reported, but it was later rejected. In 1803 a bill 
was again reported and its consideration was postponed until 
the next General Assembly. When it was again taken up 
the bill met the same fate as the first one. It was plainly 
evident that to continue the effort at that time to remove the 
disabilities of the Jew would have been in vain. In each 
session there was a class of men to whom reason appealed 
not and to whom the pleadings for justice went unanswered. 

No further attempt to introduce the bill was therefore 
made until the year 1817. In the meantime conditions had 
changed. In 1810 an amendment was adopted to prohibit 
the levying of a tax in support of the Christian religion 
which the Constitution had theretofore permitted. The 
Jews, as the years passed, increased in number, and though 
there were perhaps lttle more than one hundred in the 
entire State in 1817, there were several prominent men who 
felt their disability keenly. They were humiliated at the 
fact that although one of their number could aspire to the 
highest office in the land yet he was denied the position of 
a village constable in the State where he lived and flourished. 
The Jews gradually became more important commercially and 
won the sympathy of some of the leading men of the State. 


‘*a SET OF PEOPLE CALLED JEWS’’ 11 


In this connection an interesting incident may be mentioned 
which carries us back to Revolutionary times, and is con- 
nected with the name of Jacob Hart, one of a number of pa- 
-triotic merchants of Baltimore. Whether he was the only 
Jew of the group is unknown. The incident is briefly re- 
ferred to as follows, in a letter written by Lafayette to Wash- 
ington, April 18, 1871: 

‘‘To these measures for punishing deserters, I have added 
one which my feelings for the sufferings of the soldiers and 
peculiarity of their circumstances, have prompted me to 
adopt. The merchants of Baltimore lent me a sum of about 
£2,000, which will procure some shirts, linen, overalls, shoes 
and a few hats; the ladies will make up the shirts, and the 
overalls will be made by the detachment, so that our soldiers 
have a chance of being a little more comfortable. The money 
is lent upon my credit, and I become security for the payment: 
of it in two years’ time, when, by the French laws, I may 
better dispose of my estate. But before that time, I shall 
use my influence with the French court, in order to have this 
sum of money added to any loan Congress may have been able 
to obtain from them.’’ The following entry, ‘‘ Accounts of 
the United States with the Superintendent of Finance’’ 
(Robert Morris), serves to identify the merchants: ‘‘May 
27 (1782) Jacob Hart and others for the Repayment of 
Money Loaned the Marquis de la Fayette at Baltimore, 
7,256 dollars.’’ 

Further details appear from the following passages in the 
Journals of Congress, vol. VII, p. 86: Thursday, May 24th, 
1781. On the report of the committee to which was referred 
the matter is found the letter from Major Gen. the Marquis 
de la Fayette. The committee recommended the following 
resolution : | ; 

‘‘Resolved, That Congress entertains a just sense of the 
patriotic and timely exertions of the merchants of Baltimore 
who so generously supplied the Marquis de la Fayette with 
about 2,000 guineas, to enable him to forward the detach- 
ment under his command; That the Marquis de la Fayette 
be assured that Congress will take proper measures to dis- 


12 ‘¢, SET OF PEOPLE CALLED JEWS’’ 


charge the engagement he has entered into with the mer- 
cehants.’’ 

Markens, in his ‘‘Hebrews in America’’ (p. 93), briefly 
refers to the incident, describing Hart as a Hebrew of German 
birth, who came to this country in 1775; he was the father- 
in-law of Haym M. Salomon, son of the patriot, Haym 
Salomon. 

A search through the directory of Baltimore, ‘‘The Balti- 
more Town and Fells Point Directory’’ of 1796, by Thompson 
& Walker, gives the following names of Jews, their occupa- 
tions and residences: 

Etting, Shinah, widow, boarding-house, 3 Baltimore st.; 
Etting, Solomon, merchant, 15 S. Calvert st.; Etting, Reuben, 
dwelling, Kast st.; Etting & Kennedy, milliners, 53 Baltimore 
st.; Jacob, Moses, dry goods store, 83 Baltimore st.; Jacobs, 
Samuel, tailor, 34 8. Calvert st.; Jacobs, Joseph, hack car- 
riage keeper, 10 8. Gay st.; Itzchkin, Philip, hack carriage 
driver, 203 Baltimore st.; Kahn, 50 N. Howard st.; Koffman, 
Abraham, inn keeper, 4 N. Gay st.; Levy, Jacob, broker, 
store and dwelling, 242 Baltimore st.; Raphael Solomon, inn 
keeper, Old Town, 4 Bridge st.; Robinson, Rachel, widow, 
Fells Point, Ann st.; Robinson, Ephraim, flour and grocery, 
store, 110 Baltimore st.; Solomon, Isaac & Levy, hardware 
store, 112 Baltimore st.; Solomon, George, drayman, 41 N. 
Gay st.; Wolf, Philip, butcher, Dutch Alley. 

While not numerous, yet to them may be attributed a con- 
siderable share of the early commercial and industrial growth 
of Baltimore. ’ 

In 1812 the Jews of Baltimore were prompt to answer the 
rallying ery for patriots to fight the British. The declara- 
tion of war by the United States against Great Britain pro- 
duced considerable excitement and the General Assembly 
pledged the lives and fortunes of its citizenship for the 
eause. Large sums of money were subscribed by citizens 
for the defense of the city and the small Jewish community 
was liberal in its contributions. A distinguished British 
statesman had declared that ‘‘ Baltimore was a depository of 
the hostile spirit of the United States against England.”’ 


‘Ca SET OF PEOPLE CALLED JEWS’’ is: 


Admiral Warren had said: ‘‘Baltimore is a doomed town.’’ 
At the meeting of the Vigilance and Safety Committee 
formed in the Council Chamber of the City Hall on August 
23rd, 1814, some of the Jewish people attended. Similar 
committees were formed in each ward. In the first ward 
there are four names and Solomon Etting, who was one of 
the public spirited citizens of the city, was the chairman. 

The Etting family had indeed been conspicuous for public 
spirited and communal work. In 1798 Reuben Etting had 
been Captain of the Monumental Blues. Writing of Solo- 
mon Etting, chairman of the First Ward committee, Prof. 
J. H. Hollander of the Johns Hopkins University, has said: 
‘‘His interest in public affairs was keen and sustained; his 
intercourse and friendship with persons engaged in public 
life large and intimate, and his concern for the full emanci- 
pation of the Jews of Maryland intense. He was the author 
of the successive petitions for relief and the proposed consti- 
tutional amendments that besieged every session of the Gen- 
eral Assembly from 1816 to 1826. He was the moving spirit 
of the sharp legislative struggle that followed each effort 
and it was his personal friends, largely out of respect for 
him who led the successive contests.”’ 

An examination of the roster of the men who defended the 
city of Baltimore against the onslaughts of the British in- 
dicate many Jewish names. Some of these names are as 
follows: 

Mendes I. Cohen, private; Philip I. Cohen, private; Sam- 
uel Cohen, Jr., sergeant; Israel Davidson, Samuel Etting, 
private, wounded at Ft. McHenry; Samuel Solomon, Solo- 
mon Meyers, Jacob Moses. 

These Jews marched shoulder to shoulder with their non- 
Jewish comrades, as American citizens and patriots on the 
12th of September, 1814, in the battle against the British, 
and by their valor, under the guidance of a kind Providence, 
insured once more and forever the independence of the 
United States of America. 


CHAPTER III 
ISRAEL’S CHAMPION APPEARS 


In Baltimore City, where the majority of Jews lived, dis- 
qualification to hold office or practice law was a poignant and 
distressing circumstance; it was a live topic of conversation 
both among the Jews and non-Jews. This situation had 
been repeatedly adverted to by the press of the State. 

The Jews in Baltimore were highly regarded by their 
fellow townsmen. They were considered worthy and de- 
sirable citizens. Their patriotic and unselfish spirit; their 
prompt recognition of communal wants, and their quiet 
and unassuming behavior endeared them to the people of 
Baltimore. Hence the inability of a Jew to hold a public 
office was bound sooner or later to. be a disturbing factor in 
local and state politics. Strange as it may seem Maryland 
was probably the only State in the Union which had such 
an intolerant provision in the State Constitution. 

But it remained for a man from Washington County— 
Thomas Kennedy by name—to battle valiantly and finally 
succeed in obtaining for the Jews of Maryland full civil and 
political rights. The liberation of the Jew from religious 
intolerance in Maryland became his life-work. Both in 
speech and verse he referred to the glory of the Israelite, 
although, as he frankly confessed, in his famous address in 
the House of Delegates in 1818, ‘‘that he had not. the 
slightest acquaintance with any Jew in the world.’’ Single- 
handed, at first, he proceeded to right ‘‘this fearful wrong’’ 
that deeply stirred his mind and pained his heart. 

Just how deeply he felt the discrimination and plight of 
the Jew can be gleaned from a letter written on May 28th, 
1826, after the battle had been finally won in the General 


Assembly, and recently found among his personal letters: 
14 


ISRAEL’S CHAMPION APPEARS 15 


‘‘T have seen the first of my wishes as a public servant grati- 
fied by seeing the principles of civil and religious liberty 
established in the United States, and in seeing persecuted 
Children of Israel placed on an equality with their fellow 
citizens,’’ he wrote. ‘‘This was, indeed, my dearest wish, 
and, since I have had it gratified I am determined henceforth 
never to murmur in or out of office, but to submit content- 
edly to the voice and wishes of the people.”’ 

For eight long years Kennedy fought against inveterate 
hate and tremendous odds to put through his ‘‘Jew Bill,’’ 
as the measure came to be known. The justice of his cause, 
his burning eloquence, his passionate lyrics dedicated to the 
cause of freedom and liberty gradually attracted some of 
the leading men of the State, particularly John V. L. 
McMahon, John S. Tyson, H. M. Breckenridge and Col. 
Worthington who joined in the fight to help him break the 
shackles of bigotry and destroy the poisoned fangs of 
superstition. 

Kennedy was the son of William Kennedy of Paisley. 
Scotland. He was born in Paisley, Scotland, on November 
29th, 1776, a momentous year in American history and a 
fitting one for this apostle of freedom. This historie old 
place with its ancient abbeys and monasteries situated on 
the beautiful banks of the Cart, is famous in Caledonian 
history. It was the birthplace of Tannahill, who filled the 
sweet air in the braes of Gleniffer with his music. The sweet 
songs of Ramsey, Ferguson and Burns and other Scottish 
poets. 


‘‘The place where many a rural bardie sung, 
Whase name ou’r a’ the warl’ lang hae rung’’ 


filled his young mind with sweet hope and youthful en- 
ecouragement. The French Revolution undoubtedly had its 
effect upon him. He came to America when he was 20 years 
old, having left his home in Paisley on April 18, 1796. He 
embarked at Glasgow in the ship Britannia, bound for 
Georgetown on the Potomac River. His motive in leaving 


16 ISRAEL’S CHAMPION APPEARS 


home seems to have been a romantic desire to live in the 
‘land of freedom.’’ His ambition in life, he wrote a few 
years later, was to spend his days ‘‘In virtue’s service and 
in Freedom’s Cause.’’ His brother’ Matthew had already 
gone to America a good many years before. For twelve 
years no news had been received from him and his parents 
thought he was dead, but in 1795 a stranger brought a letter 
to his parents from him, giving a good account of himself 
and his prospects in America. His brother John sailed from 
Port Glasgow a few days before Thomas left and landed in 
New York the day Thomas landed at Georgetown. The 
voyage consumed thirty-eight days. As the Britanma cast 
anchor at Georgetown on the 28th day of May her guns were 
fired. This brought the inhabitants of the village down to 
the waterside. Kennedy was the first of the passengers 
to jump from the captain’s jolly boat upon the shore, 
‘‘olad,’’ as he says in his journal, ‘‘glad, once more to tread 
on solid ground—and that too in the land of liberty.’’ As 
he landed a tall man accosted him and asked where the vessel 
was from. He understood the man to ask where he was from 
and answered ‘‘from Paisley.’’ The stranger then with 
ereat eagerness inquired of Mr. Kennedy his name. ‘‘And 
while he was speaking to me,’’ continued the journal, ‘‘I 
thought fortune had brought to me my brother Matthew 
whom I had not seen for eleven years, and on that suppo- 
sition J told him I thought I knew him and then let him 
know my name; but it was with difficulty I could persuade 
him I was his youngest brother (for the said person was 
indeed the same I supposed).’’ The mutual happiness 
caused by this meeting can ~be easier conceived than 
described. Thomas then went to his brother’s house, which 
was in Georgetown and became acquainted with his family, 
a wife and child. ‘‘After drinking some republican 
whiskey,’’ he later wrote, ‘‘I sat down to dinner and feasted 
on some wholesome fare, the product of Columbia and began 
first of all with luncheon made of Indian meal and well 
known by the name of poan.’’ In the afternoon he went 
through the village and the following Sunday crossed Rock 


ISRAEL’S CHAMPION APPEARS aig 


Creek to view the Federal city, Washington. Washington 
was then a wilderness. The only buildings completed were 
a row known as the ‘‘six buildings.’’ The President’s 
House and Capitol were begun but were not yet under roof. 
One grog shop was in a temporary shed near the White 
House and that was all of Washington just 112 years ago. 
Kennedy soon obtained employment as bookkeeper for a 
merchant in Georgetown and later for a contractor who 
built the bridges across the Potomac at Little Falls. 
Subsequently we find Kennedy working for the Potomac 
Navigation Company. Whilst in the employment of the last 
concern, he met Miss Rosamond Thomas of Frederick, who 
was visiting near the Great Falls. Kennedy was smitten 
with her charms and after a few years married her. 

In the year 1800 when Thomas Jefferson introduced an 
act to establish religious liberty in Virginia, Kennedy was 
inspired to write a poem, entitled ‘‘The Song of Liberty.”’ 
Referring to Jefferson, he sang: 


Acting in a noble cause, 
He abolished cruel laws; 
Set the mind and body free, 
He’s the son of Liberty. 


Few like Jefferson we find 
Among the sons of human kind. 
Friend of peace and honesty 

Is the son of Liberty.’’ 


Kennedy wrote many sentimental and love _ songs; 
numerous stirring and patriotic melodies on Liberty. Some 
of them were rough and unpolished lays, but all breathing 
his warm, liberal, passionate feelings. In his prologue of 
his first book of poetry published in 1800 he sang: 


‘<Tf in some future time, some distant age, 
These strains shall still some pleasing thrill impart, 
E’er sorrow sooth, or cheer a drooping heart, 


18 ISRAEL’S CHAMPION APPEARS 


E’er stop a struggling sigh, or check a tear, 
I will be blest—such fame is truly dear 
And such the laurels that J wish to wear.”’ 


But interesting and heart-feeling indeed is the dedicatory 
epistle set forth to his parents—William Kennedy and 
Grizal, his wife. It distinctly reveals the lights and shadows 
of the man; his tender and pure heart; his nobility and 
splendor of soul. Addressing his ‘‘ever dear parents,’’ he 
says: 

‘Without love, yet without the fear of refusal, I respect- 
fully dedicate to you the contents of this volume which is 
not yet half finished; however, I offer all that has been, or is 
to be composed, until the time of publication, if that period 
ever arrives. 

‘Mor to whom am [I under so many real obligations? To 
you I owe my birth—the care of my infant years—my 
education—my all. Your pious instructions enforced by 
noble examples, have guided and guarded me through life, 
and though amidst the follies—the faults and failings of 
youth, they have sometimes been neglected, yet they never 
were wholly effaced from my memory, and in the calm 
moments of reflection they served to convince me—that the 
paths of virtue were also the only paths to peace and true 
pleasure. 

When remembrance calls to mind your truly amiable 
qualities, I am almost tempted to say: Why was not your 
situation in hfe equal to your deserts? Yet I have never 
heard you murmur or repine at your lot, but, on the contrary, 
you daily expressed your thankfulness for the blessings 
Heaven had bestowed; let me, therefore, follow your example, 
conscious, though at present, riches and honors fall as often 
to the share of the mean and undeserving as to the worthy 
and the good, that there is a time fast approaching when 
mankind will be placed on their true level, and then I boldly 
say, that you, my dear parents, will stand on commanding 
ground; that few, in comparison, will be found your equals; 
superiors, alas! where are they? 


EE 


ISRAEL’S CHAMPION APPEARS 19 


By your own industry—without the aid of any other 
speculation than that arising from the labor of the hands— 
you have raised and supported a family of 12 children. 
Eleven grew up, and you gave them all a useful education. 
Your youngest is the writer. You have had to part with 
all of them. In the East Indies death robbed you of one 
son; in the West Indies of another—your three daughters 
and two other sons died near you—and the rest have removed 
to different parts of the globe; far distant from you. 
Parents only can tell what parents feel when death tears 
their much loved offspring from them forever, or when they 
part, perhaps, never to see each other again. 

My father, with honest pride, I often think of your worthy 
character and with pleasure say that I would not exchange, 
no, not to be the son and heir of the illustrious Washington. 
To a rigid adherence to honesty as the best policy, to an 
unbounded charity towards mankind in general, to benevo- 
lence, where although your gifts are small, they were freely 
given to a life strictly temperate in every respect—you 
added the walk and behavior of a true Christian. Your 
conduct universally had a tendency to promote the cause of 
religion, and though firm in your own principles—though 
ready to give an answer to every one who asked you the 
reason of your hopes, yet you never descended to be a 
persecutor, or to behave illiberally towards those who differed 
from you in sentiment. Among your friends were some of 
the wisest men of the age, need [ name among others your 
intimacy with the worthy Witherspoon, once your reverend 
pastor, who removed from a seat of persecution to the United 
States, and who was instrumental in assisting this country 
to gain her independence. My mother! Oh! May God 
bless her declining years, and let her die in thy good time 
in peace! My mother, I cannot cannot write. When I 
think on your goodness of heart—your kindness to me— 
your youngest, your darling—I cannot sufficiently give vent 
to my feelings or express my affection in a becoming manner. 
You have indeed been a mother to us all, by you we were all 
taught to read, by you we were taught to love one another. 


20 ISRAEL’S CHAMPION APPEARS 


You have had to part with all your children—yet at no time 
have I ever seen you shed a tear on the ocecasion—your grief 
was deep and silent. But on the return of a long absent 
boy—the tears of joy would trickle down your cheeks—the 
heart was then too full to say much. How often have you 
employed me as your little agent in distributing from your 
own scanty portion, a share to the sick, the miserable, or 
the poor, even at an age when I knew not the meaning of 
the term benevolence—your uncommon goodness in this 
respect made such lasting impression In my mind, that no 
distance of time or space can ever efface them. 

My dear parents; were I to dwell on your worthy 
characters, those who are unacquainted with you might 
suspect me of flattery, but flattery I despise and motives of 
interest can have no weight in this dedication—perhaps it 
may, never be seen by either of you, and if it should, all I 
ask from you is—your blessing. 

If ever the following pieces entitle your son to fame, that 
fame he wishes you to share, and truly famous will he be— 
if he lives a life like you, a life that will lead to citizenship 
in a country where humble modest merit shall be exalted.’’ 

Little did the Jews of Maryland, smarting as they were 
under the sting of political boycott, realize that in a short 
time, there was to appear the heroie figure of this Nineteenth 
Century David, who was to smite the Goliath Prejudice that 
stirred the General Assembly. When the outlook appears 
darkest in the Diaspora it would seem that some illustrious 
figure, with a mind and spirit of faultless rectitude invariably 
appears to make the burdens of Israel lighter. This time it 
was Thomas Kennedy from the hills of Western Maryland. 
With an exalted reverence for the letter and spirit of the 
Fourth Commandment, an inborn love for the principles of 
freedom and virtue, this man proceeded, with unflinching 
courage, indomitable will to ‘‘right a fearful wrong.’’ 


CHAPTER IV 
THE FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 


Kennedy was elected as a delegate from Washington 
county in 1817, and soon began to prepare for his great 
battle to remove the disabilities of the Jew. After making 
a study of the constitutions of the different States, he said 
he was ‘‘amazed to find an intolerable situation in Mary- 
land.’’ That a man should be deprived of the right to hold 
publie office because of his religion was incomprehensible to 
him; he determined to fortify himself with the necessary 
facts and then commence the struggle. On December 9th of 
the following year, a few days after the convening of the 
Legislature, he introduced a resolution calling for the 
appointment of a committee to consider the justice and 
expediency of ‘‘placing the Jewish inhabitants on an equal 
footing with the Christians.’’ The other two members of 
the committee, of which Kennedy was chairman, were Henry 
M. Breckenridge of Baltimore city, and Ebenezer 8. Thomas 
of Baltimore county. His associates were won over by 
Kennedy. The committee several days later submitted a 
masterful and learned report profound in its analysis and 
incontrovertible in its facts. This document, which might 
have been echoed from the heart of the modern day Zionist, 
-ereated a profound impression upon the thinking minds of 
the State. But much work had to be done before the issue 
could overcome the prejudices of many of the legislators. 

In the report, Kennedy and his committee said there was 
only one side to the subject. In society, mankind has civil 
and political duties to perform, but with regard to religion, 
that is a question between man and his Creator alone. 
There is no law that can reach the heart—no human tribunal 


has a right to take cognizance of this matter. 
ZI 


22 THE FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 


‘“‘But if we are Christians,’’ the message which had been 
prepared by Mr. Kennedy said, ‘‘we must believe that the 
Jewish nation will again be restored to the favor and 
protection of God. The story of that wonderful people, 
from the days of Abraham unto the present time, is full of 
interest and instruction; their first emigration into Egypt; 
their leaving that country for the land of Canaan; their 
passage through the Red Sea; their journey in the wilder- 
ness; their settlement in Canaan; their captivity at Babylon; 
their restoration and final dispersion, afford a theme that 
never has been, never can be exhausted. They were once 
the peculiar people of God, they are yet a peculiar people; 
though seattered and dispersed in every country and in every 
clime, their future state will no doubt be more glorious than 
ever. And he who has led their fathers through the deserts, 
has promised to lead them again to their native land. He 
who raised up and called Cyrus by name, can by the same 
power and with the same ease, raise up a deliverer to His 
once favored nation; and it is probable that the time is not 
far distant when this great event shall take place. Who 
that has ever contemplated the rise and progress of the 
Russian Empire, and noticed the decline and fall of Turkey, 
but will agree that wondrous changes will ere long take place 
in that part of the world; and when the Crescent shall sub- 
mit to the Eagle, may we not hope that the banners of the 
children of Israel shall again be unfurled on the walls of 
Jerusalem on the Holy Hill of Zion?”’ 

The bill was entitled, ‘‘An Act to extend to the sect of 
people professing the Jewish religion, the same right and 
privileges that are enjoyed by Christians.’’ The act 
accompanying the report was made the order of the day for 
January 13th, 1919, but was postponed until one week later. 
The House proceeded to the second reading of the bill, and 
on motion by Delegate Wilson that the matter be held over 
until the next session was defeated. The bill was then read 
throughout and the question put by the Speaker—‘‘Shall 
the bill pass?’’ Kennedy jumped to his feet and delivered 
an address which was irresistible in its logie and masterly 


THE FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 23 


in its reasoning. Although more than a hundred years have 
passed since, the speech could be read with profit by the 
scheming demagogues and religious fanatics of this day. 

Kennedy did his best to stem the tide of defeat. Finally 
when the vote was taken, it stood 50 to 24 against the 
measure. Kennedy pledged himself to renew the fight. 
Elected to the Assembly the following year, he re-introduced 
the bill. It was again defeated by the decisive vote of 47 to 
20. 

Feeling deeply the sting of defeat but knowing that justice 
will ultimately triumph, Kennedy composed the following 
poetic address ‘‘To the Children of Israel in Maryland.’’ He 
sent several copies to several Baltimore Jews, whose virtues 
and merits he had been informed of by some of his Christian 
colleagues from the city. 


When Israel’s tribes,—Heaven’s chosen people dwelt 
In Pharaoh’s land, and sore oppression felt ; 

When every scheme that tyrant power could frame, 
Was tried to blot from Earth their very name 

Murder most foul, was then a King’s resort, 

And helpless innocents were slain in sport, 

In their distress to heaven they raised their ery, 

And thanks to heaven there was a helper nigh, 

A helper that relief did quickly send, 

The God of faithful Abram was their friend. 


Yet when to Pharaoh came Jehovah’s word, 

To let his Israel go, to serve their Lord, 

The haughty tyrant’s heart was hardened so, 

He would not let the chosen people go, 

Till numerous plagues the Egyptian land destroyed, 
While peace and rest the Israelites enjoyed, 

And when the avenging Angel armed with wrath, 
Visited each Egyptian house with death, 

The bloody sign that night the lintels bore, 
Made him Pass over every Hebrew door, 

At last proud Pharaoh humbled did repent, 


THE FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 


And to God’s people’s wishes gave consent, 
Then forth with joy and gladness Israel went. 


The same sad scenes occur in later times, 

The same oppressions and detested crimes, 

Vile superstition with tyrannic sway, 

To deeds of death and darkness leads the way, 
While bigot prejudice, and jealot pride, 

Join in her train, and triumph at her side, 

And with blasphemy, not to be forgiven, 
Pronounce their hellish cause . . . the cause of Heaven, 
On them the example of old Pharaoh’s lost, 

Their hearts are harden’d like the Egyptian host, 
Their fate may too as sudden, awful be, 

They too may perish in a stormy sea; 

Sink in the mighty waters like a stone, 

By Israel’s God in vengeance overthrown. 


Why does short-sighted man still make pretence, 
Laws to prescribe for high Omnipotence? 
Usurp the powers that to I AM belong, 

And in Jehovah’s name do open wrong? 

O, why will man thus sin against the light ? 

Who made the heart, alone can judge aright; 
And every heart is in his mighty hand, 

Turns at his will—obeys at his command. 


Say who can feel or who can taste for me? 

For me can any hear, or any see? 

Who then can act for the more noble mind, 

That ranges uncontrouled and unconfined 

Through Earth’s vast space and visits realms unknown, 
Bursts heaven’s high gates and-worships at the throne 
Beholds the glories of a future state, 

Prepar’d for all the truly good and great.— 
Man—foolish man attempts—attempts in vain, 

This offspring of the Deity to chain— 


? 


THE FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 25 


Man may make hypocrites—but man can ne’er, 
Make a true convert—penitent sincere— 


I blush for Christians that they should forget, 
The Golden Rule—their great Law-giver set, 
That they the precious precept should condemn, 
Which their ador’d Redeemer taught to them— 
Do unto others—as you’d wish they’d do 

In the same situation unto you— 

And those this just command who disobey, 

Seek not for Heaven in the true Christian way. 


Ye seed of Abram whom the Lord did choose, 

Ye sons of Israel, hear a friendly muse— 

To you she sings though in a humble strain, 
And weeps with you o’er Babel’s streams again, 
With you in sad captivity she roves, 

O! could she sing the song that Zion loves! 

Yet faint not—Jacob’s God is still your own, 
Nor shall his people e’er be left alone; 

His own Peculiar People he shall save, 

While their oppressors all shall find a grave, 
The time draws nigh, by ancient Bards foretold, 
The Blessed day O! may we soon behold— 


The midnight’s past . . . the dawn is near at hand 
And Israel’s tribes shall seek their native land, 
The time draws nigh .. . O’ may it quickly come, 


When Israel’s God, shall call his Ransom’d home, 
When Zion’s Mount and Salem’s towers shall ring, 
With shouts of joy to Israel’s holy King; 

When from all lands the willing tribes shall flow, 
And to the house of God in triumph go, 

Captivity, shall then be captives led, 

And every blessing on the land be shed— 

The streets of Salem shall again rejoice— 
Crowded with lovely girls and playful boys, 

The aged too upon his staff shall lean, 


26 THE FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 


Worship his God—and bless the happy scene, 
He who has promis’d this—His word is sure, 
‘‘His Mercy does from age to age endure.’’ 


In your own land when thus securely plae’d, 
When every blessing you and yours shall taste, 
When fix’d forever is your Country’s fate, 
Adorn’d with all that’s good, and all that’s great, 
Will no soft sighs some former scenes recall ? 

Will no kind tears from eyes of friendship fall? 
Is there no land on Earth will cause regret? 

Is there no land you never can forget? — 

While fond remembrance cry—We love her yet? 
Yes—Yes—There is a Land-belov’d-most dear, 

A Land that you and yours will still revere: 

’T was there you first a safe asylum found, 

’T was there you first were plae’d on equal ground; 
The Glorious work was there at first begun, 
That shall unite Gentiles and Jews in one— 
Home of the Brave—the Land of Washington. 

And when on days of gladness and of joy, 

The songs of Zion shall your harps employ, 
When Israel’s daughters in their charms advance 
To join the choir—or lead the mazy dance 

When sportive mirth and laughing pleasure reign, 
The Minstrel oft shall choose a fav’rite strain, 
Then ‘‘ Hail Columbia’’—thrilling found shall use, 
While listening crowds with plaudits rend the skies, 
The ways of Heaven are hid from mortal eyes, 

And blessings oft times reach us in disguise, 

Your sufferings and your persecution tends 

To inerease the zeal and number of your friends, 
They will increase until your feeble foes, 

Your claims to justice shall no more oppose, 

In times when dangers great did most abound, 

In Israel’s God your father safety found, 

He was their rock—their stay—their sure defense, 
He brought them comfort and deliverance, 


THE FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 27 


Then trust in Him and patient wait his will, 
He will e’er long his promise fulfil. 
He will not leave you—he will soon restore 
His presence shall be with you evermore. 


After Kennedy’s return to Washington county he found 
that his political enemies had sown a whirlwind. He was 
bitterly assailed as being ‘‘an enemy of Christianity,’’ a 
‘‘ Judas Iseariot,’’ ‘‘One-half Jew and the other half not a 
Christian,’’ and ‘‘if he should be re-elected he would renew 
his shameful attack upon the Christian religion.’’ But 
Kennedy still found that he had maintained his popularity 
and he was returned to the Legislature. Through his able 
generalship and burning eloquence the bill passed the House 
of Delegates for the first time in 1822. It went through by 
a slender majority and, under the Constitution it had to be 
approved by the next Legislature before becoming operative; 
hence, it became the issue before the people at the election 
for members of General Assembly in 18238. Kennedy by his 
speech in the House made the question a burning issue in the 
whole State and every political subject that had agitated the 
Assembly and people were made subordinate to the ‘‘Jew 
bill,’’ as it was ealled. 

In concluding his speech in the House on January 10, 
1823, Kennedy said: 

‘‘For the present then I will pause to hear what others 
have to say. A few short years, Mr. Speaker, you and 
I and all who now hear me must leave this transitory scene. 
Let us then pass this bill, let us pass it unanimously. We 
will never repent it, even on a dying pillow. It will comfort 
us to think that we have done at least one good act in our 
lives, that we have been instrumental in establishing religious 
freedom in Maryland, that we have broken the yoke of super- 
stition and prejudice and let the oppressed go free, and that 
we have caused happiness to many an anxious heart. 


‘‘Lay old superstition low, 
Let the oppressed people go, 


28 THE FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 


To the bill let none say no, 
Aye unanimously.’’ 


The bill did not pass. 

The following unsigned memorial was read to the Assembly 
preceding the debate. It was the first direct appeal to the 
Legislature of Maryland by Jews for equal political rights. 
For some unexplainable reason no names appear on the 
memorial. It follows :— 


TO THE HONORABLE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 
OF MARYLAND. 


THE MEMORIAL OF THE SUBSCRIBERS, CITIZENS 
thereof, 


RESPECTFULLY REPRESENTS: 


Your Memorialists are of that class of the Citizens of 
Maryland, long subjected to the pressure of political disqual- 
ifications, by the operation of a religious test in the Consti- 
tution of the State; and they approach your Honorable Body 
with this their prayer, that an Act passed the 29th of Jan- 
uary 1823 ‘‘to extend to all the citizens of Maryland the 
same civil rights and religious privileges that are enjoyed un- 
der the Constitution of the United States,’’ may be con- 
firmed by the present session, becoming thereby part of the 
Constitution. 

Your Memorialists, feeling it incumbent on them at this 
stage of the proceeding, address themselves on the subject, 
to your Honorable body, in the honest confidence, which the 
American is educated to entertain in his fellow citizens, and 
in the legislative guardians of his rights. It is not their 
wish, to obtain from your honorable body, a grant of ex- 
elusive privilege; because such a privilege would be hostile, 
not only to the principles of our institutions, but to the ex- 
press provisions of that charter which we have all alike, 
sworn to support; but it is equal rights which they petition; 
their voice is not raised in favor, but in opposition, to ex- 


THE FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 29 


clusive privilege; they ask an equality of rights with their 
fellow citizens. If the disqualifications under which they 
labor, were imposed as the penalty of law for civil delin- 
quencies, for habits of social intemperance, or a disregard 
of the obligations of religion, they would blush to murmur; 
but it is, as they humbly apprehend, the retribution for a too 
honest perseverance in conscientious faith, unmindful of 
political disqualifications, of social inconvenience, and of in- 
dividual contumely; and this same manly and virtuous con- 
stancy which exerted in the cause of their Country, would 
entitle them to be honored as patriots, exposes them to pro- 
scription, when exercised in the service of the acknowledged 
God. They firmly flatter themselves, and have at length 
some reason to believe, that your enlightened Councils will 
suffer no longer, those strange anomalies to endure—that 
the period has arrived at last, when conscience and reason, 
the peculiar gifts of an Omnipotent benevolence, will be re- 
spected, and persecutions be abandoned to the Inquisitor and 
the Bigot. Are their doctrines immoral? They are the 
foundation of the general faith. Are they dangerous? It 
is no part of them to work conversions. Are they new? 
Ancient as the revelation of Almighty truth. Your Memo- 
rialists, with all humility, are at a loss to understand what 
there is so peculiarly exceptionable in these their tenets, as 
to have induced a solitary, but persevering departure, from 
the sublime system of our American political jurisprudence: 
why even at this moment, when the whole American pulse 
throbs with indignation at the civil and religious proscrip- 
tions, renewed and asserted in the old world, the good people 
of Maryland alone, should find it necessary or expedient, to 
continue for a moment, the disqualifications of any class of 
their fellow Citizens. Your Memorialists beg leave to re- 
mind your Honorable Body, that the honors of office in our 
happy Republic, are not assumed, but conferred; not usurped 
by guilty ambition, but bestowed directly or indirectly, by 
popular confidence; that to disqualify any class of your 
citizens, is for the people to disqualify themselves; can it be 
necessary, can it be wise or politic at this day, for the people 


30 THE FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 


to disqualify themselves on the score of opinion only, from 
consulting merit in the selection of their public servants? 

Your Memorialists do not here propose, a voluminous dis- 
cussion of the great principles involved in the question, 
which they desire to bring before you; because it is one, as 
they apprehend, at this day, almost universally understood. 
It is the same which has agitated like a tempest, the human 
family from its earliest existence; has armed the hands of 
men in wide and desolating wars; has stained nations and 
families with intestine crime; trampled the charities of life; 
and driven societies from their natural homes, to seek an 
asylum more hospitable, on the billows of the deep or amid 
the recesses of the desert; a question which, as it mainly con- 
tributed to populate this our common Country, was here first 
and fully understood; and one, the liberal and happy re- 
sults of whose true nature, our own Maryland though too 
long misled upon the subject, evinced at the last session of 
her Legislature, and as your Memorialists trust, will again 
prove to the world on the present occasion, are deeply felt 
and thoroughly appreciated. 

America, instructed in the school of adversity and oppres- 
sion, and warned by the calamities of nations, has attained 
the haven of political happiness, by the guide of political 
wisdom. Moderate in her might, she has never sought to 
find in power, the foundation of new rights, but metes out 
to the weak the same measure with the strong. It was re- 
served for her to discover, that true policy consists in Jus- 
tice, which, whilst it secures the confidence and devotion of 
her own Sons, entitles her to the reciprocity of the stranger. 
Above all, America has been the first to respect opinion and 
the human mind, that mysterious and sacred relation of sub- 
lunary Man to Celestial Wisdom; nor has thought to con- 
trol the measureless elasticity of that principle, which cre- 
ated for exclusive allegiance to the Omnipotent alone, is 
beyond the reach of temporal restraints. America has wisely 
relinquished it to the insidious policy of regal governments, 
to make an instrument of religion; she has forever sundered 
the spiritual from the temporal concerns of men, and con- 


THE FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY OL 


vineed mankind that disqualifications and persecution are 
only fruitful of disunion and hate;—toleration and equal 
rights, of good will and peace on earth. 

Your Memorialists humbly apprehend that a peculiar and 
most important crisis hath occurred in the political world, 
and in the history of man; and if in the eastern hemisphere, 
his struggles for civil and religious liberty, hitherto inef- 
fectual, have been smothered in their birth, it is now particu- 
larly important, that, successful throughout the west, no 
speck should endure upon the purity of that code, sublime in 
its nature, as in its origin, it is confessedly divine. 

As fellow citizens of Maryland, as Brethren of the same 
human family; for the honor of the State, for the great in- 
terests of humanity; your Memorialists humbly pray at your 
hands, that the Bill before you may be confirmed. 

The situation in Washington county was annoying to 
Kennedy and his friends; a perfect frenzy seized the people. 
Kennedy’s opponents trickily made the people believe that 
it was a death struggle between Christianity and Unitarian- 
ism, which they avowed was a fancy cloak for Judaism. In 
one issue of the Torch Light, there were no less than fourteen 
different articles, written with a stupid degree of vituperation 
and intemperance, which is both shameful and regretful in 
our day, to contemplate. A ‘‘Christian Voter’’ asked the 
people of Maryland whether ‘‘we wish to strike from our 
laws the last clause which declares our profession of Chris- 
tianity. The passage of the bill would sap the foundations of 
all we hold dear.’’ A Native of Maryland declares ‘‘that all 
the twelve millions of this persecuted race which are scat- 
tered abroad throughout the whole earth are welcome to our 
country. We will be friends with them. We will give them 
anything but our country. We cannot make them masters 
over us.”’ 

How familiar and how similar are these Hamanese cries 
to the bigoted rantings of the Chestertons, Belloes, Fords and 
Ku Kluxers. 

The man who dipped his pen in vitriol deeper than any 
others, the man whose voice could be heard above all the rest 


32 THE FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 


in his defense of illiberalism and intolerance was Benjamin 
Galloway of Washington county. This peculiar man had 
headed the Christian ticket, and with him, standing for the 
same views, were Joseph Gabby, Joseph I. Merrick and James 
H. Bowles. Galloway fought his fight both on the stump 
and in the newspapers. This bigot maintained that the biil 
was an assault upon the Christian religion; that it would 
promote infidelity ; that Thos. Kennedy was a native of Scot- 
land, a country that was flooded with infidels. The approach- 
ing election, Galloway claimed, would decide definitely 
whether Christianity or Unitarians would govern Washington 
county and the State. He boldly proclaimed that he did not 
wish the support of any Jews, Deists, Mohammedans or 
Unitarians, but wanted every Christian to come forward. 

The ‘‘Jew Bill’’ ticket was composed of Thomas Kennedy, 
Ignatius Drury, T. B. Hall and Thomas Kellar. They re- 
plied to Galloway in trenchant but polite manner. The 
eight candidates were invited to a ‘‘public spouting at Cold 
Spring, at the southern outskirts of Hagerstown.’’ The ecan- 
didates accepted. Kennedy and his associates had reason 
and justice on their side; the opposition trusted to passion 
and prejudice. The voters were in no mood to listen to 
reason and the so-called ‘‘ Christian ticket’’ was elected by a 
large vote. The National Intelligencer, Niles Register, and 
other periodicals attributed the unfortunate result to a re- 
ligious hysteria which had been artfully fomented by fanat- 
ical religious bigots. The better opinion of the community 
regarded Galloway’s speech as a splattering of ridiculous 
misstatements. 

Galloway published the following advertisement in the 
Washington County Herald, appealing to his fellow citizens 
to kill the ‘‘Jew Bill’’ and defeat its proponents, represented 
by Kennedy and his associates. 

‘“To the Christian Voters of Washington County, State of 
Maryland: 

‘““Highly respected fellow-citizens: 

‘*Venienti Occurrite Morbo. 

‘‘Oppose the threatened disorder.’’ 


I_——— 


THE FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY oo 


‘‘T am as decidedly opposed now to the confirmation by 
the next General Assembly, as I was during the late session 
of the present one, to the passage of the Act, which has been 
published for your serious consideration, bearing on its front 
the insidious title ‘an act to extend to all the citizens of 
Maryland the same civil right and religious privileges that 
are enjoyed under the Constitution of the United States.’ 

““Messrs. Thomas Kennedy, Kellar and Drury, who zeal- 
ously supported said act, at the last session, have lately pre- 
sented themselves to your view in public prints, as candidates 
for your votes at the approaching election, with sanguine 
expectations (no doubt) of success. It was not, believe me, 
fellow-citizens, my intention to have again appeared before 
you as a candidate for a seat in the General Assembly, having 
arrived at the advanced age of three score years and ten; 
but, as to retreat at so very important a crisis might be con- 
sidered by you as desertion, should you be disposed to elect 
me as one of your delegates to the next General Assembly, I 
will most unquestionably serve as such, and I will, in that 
event, vote in point blank opposition to the confirmation, 
as I did at the late session, to the passage of said (in my 
judgment) highly exceptionable act; and which I hold to 
be no more nor less than an attempt to undervalue, and, by 
so doing, to bring into popular contempt, the Christian re- 
ligion. 

Preferring, as I do, Christianity to Judaism, Deism, Uni- 
tarlanism, or any other sort of new fangled ism, I deprecate 
any change in our State government, calculated to afford the 
least chance to the enemies of Christianity, of undermining 
it, in the belief of the people of Maryland. What could not 
heretofore be effected by Hooke, it seems, is now attempting 
to be done by Crooke. 

‘Yours respectfully, 
**BENJAMIN GALLOWAY. 
‘‘Hagerstown, Washington County, 
‘‘Maryland, Aug. 18, 1823.”’ 


The editor of Niles Weekly Register, the then popular 


34 THE FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 


periodical of Baltimore, advised his readers, in the issue of 
September 6, 1823, to ‘‘preserve the letter as a curiosity.’’ 
Galloway won. 


The defeat of Kennedy, it was felt, throughout the State, | 


meant the knifing of the ‘‘Jew Bill’’ in the forthcoming 
session. The Niles Register, under date of October 11, said, 
apropos of the victory of Galloway: 

‘“With much regret we have to believe that the late 
elections in this State make it probable that our Constitution 
will not be amended, as proposed, at the next session, by 
striking out the religious test required of members of the 
Legislature and others appointed to office. It’ is a shame 
that in this enlightened day and in this free country, an 
attempt should be made, by government, to force the 
consciences of men, in matters of faith to prescribe the duties 
which they owe to their Creator.’’ 

With Kennedy absent in the House the Bill was defeated 
by a majority of 44 to 28, although in the State Senate, it 
passed by a vote of 8 to 6. Kennedy wrote to friends ‘‘that, 
although exiled at home, I shall continue to battle for the 
measure, aye, until my last drop of blood.’’ He confined 
his lobbying principally to the upper chamber and the 
successful vote there revealed the man’s powers. 

Referring to the lost battle, Niles Register said: 

“It is with extreme mortification we are compelled to 
state, that the bill to confirm an act, entitled an act to extend 
to all the citizens of Maryland the same civil rights and 
religious privileges that are enjoyed under the Constitution 
of the United States, has been negatived in the House of 
Delegates. It is believed that it would have passed if a con- 
siderable number of the members had not previously pledged 
themselves to vote against it, to gratify the prejudices of 
their constituents. Comment is ‘useless. Indeed, the lan- 
guage that would be fitting for the subject, would be very un- 
suitable to the personal respect due to many worthy men who 
voted in the negative.”’ 

Not to be denied and with the spirit of a martyr, the 
following year Kennedy jumped into the fight as an inde- 


OL 


THE FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 35 


pendent candidate. The purging of the State Constitution 
was his battle cry and righteousness his emblem. He was 
elected. 

The thinking and discriminating minds of leading citizens 
throughout the State rejoiced in Kennedy’s return. The 
Niles Register, under date of February 25, 1825, said: 

‘‘Another attempt is being made in the Legislature of this 
State to relieve the Jews of the political disqualification to 
which they are now subjected by the Constitution. Surely, 
‘the day of such things has passed away and it is abusive of 
common sense, to talk about republicanism, while we refuse 
liberty of conscience in matters so important as those which 
have relation to what a man owes his Creator, as to the 
articles of his religious faith. But in Maryland... the 
doctrine promulgated by the Congress of ’76, that all men 
are created free and equal is constitutionally pronounced to 
be false—because that it is artificial, whereby one man, in 
one county, may have ten times the political weight of 
another man, in an adjoining county. If the free citizens 
of the State were represented in the Legislature, this frag- 
ment of the barbarous ages, in respect to the Jews, would 
soon be stricken from the Constitution of the State.’’ 

A writer in the Baltimore Patriot who defended the 
Constitution, pronouncing it ‘‘as perfect as it can attain to, 
from the imperfection of our nature,’’ was assailed from 
many quarters. The replies indicated that sentiment in 
favor of the bill was growing steadily from the hills of 
Garrett to the shores of Worcester. In Baltimore city it 
was difficult for most people to understand, how there could 
be opposition to the change in the Constitution. Discussing 
the bizarre letter in the Patriot, the Niles Register said: 

“*. . . It was recently said that the late learned Chancellor 
‘Kitty, was the only man in Maryland that had, or could 
make out, a correct copy of the Constitution of the State, 
so much has the miserable thing been miserably hacked with 
dull scissors, and miserably patched with parti-colored stuffs, 
by ‘bungling political tailors. The following, however, are 
some of the delectable provisions of this Constitution, which 


36 THE FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 


is as perfect as the imperfection of human nature will admit 
of! 

It tyrannically, I had liked to have said impiously, 
interferes with the duties which are owing by man to his 
Creator, in the requisition of a religious test as a qualification 
for civil office... ”’ 

The sober sense of the people was being awakened 
eradually; newspapers and magazines throughout the 
country were branding the conduct of Galloway and his 
satellites as a ‘‘disgrace and a shame.’’ Public men were 
writing letters to their friends bitterly scoring the opposition. 
At a previous session, a brilliant young lawyer; John Van 
Lear McMahon of Allegheny county, had delivered a speech 
which lasted five hours in behalf of the measure. The 
address held his audience spellbound. It was a masterly 
effort. It circulated beyond the boundaries of the State and 
many were the encomiums heaped upon the young but gifted 
orator. Newspapers like the Natchez (Mississippi) Inde-- 
pendent Press, the Virginia Republican, published at Dan- 
ville; the Charlestown Patriot; the Philadelphia Freemen’s 
Journal, the New York National Advocate, all contained 
sharp editorials calling upon the people of Maryland to 
purge themselves of an ignoble stain. Letters, written by 
Thomas Jefferson on May 28, 1818, lauding the Jewish 
people, had been published in Maryland newspapers; the 
subject of religious freedom appeared to be better under- 
stood. Those immortals asked that ‘‘liberty of conscience 
prevail and that every narrow idea be annulled in religion, 
government and commerce.”’ 

It was but natural that shortly after the convening of the 
House, Kennedy should move for the appointment of a 
committee to consider the confirmation of the bill. To 
expedite the enactment of the law, however, he later had the 
House bill postponed indefinitely, in favor of a similar 
measure which had been fathered by Reverdy Johnson in the 
Senate. When the confirmatory bill was ready to be put to 
a vote on January 5th, 1826, Kennedy arose with the native 
modesty, which was one of his finest characteristics, and dis- 


THE FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY of 


claimed all honor for bringing the subject before the 
Legislature. Kennedy’s address was again illuminating and 
inspiring, as was that of John S. Tyson of Baltimore city, 
who prayed for immortality on what he had to say in order 
that ‘‘Thomas Kennedy’s glory may be perpetuated to 
posterity.’’ None dared to reply and the bill was passed by 
a vote of 45 to 32. Thus came to a glorious end this great 
Marylander’s struggle for religious liberty. The amend- 
ment not only did away with the religious test as a qualifi- 
cation for office, but repealed, in effect, the provision in the 
Bill of Rights, assuring protection only to persons professing 
the Christian religion. 

Great rejoicing prevailed in many parts of the country, 
and particularly in Baltimore city, over the passage of the 
bill. It meant the birth of genuine religious freedom in 
Maryland. Many letters and messages of thanks and 
felicitations were received by Kennedy and the members of 
the General Assembly who had supported him in his stand. 
There was a feeling that a new era was about to occur in the 
Commonwealth. At the same session many laws of benefit 
to the people were enacted. The names that were found in 
support of the ‘‘Jew Bill’’ were distinguished in the history 
of the colony and the State; many of their descendants in 
this age are in the forefront of things industrial, political, 
professional and charitable. 

Those who voted for the measure were: Messrs. Semmes 
(Speaker); Kilgour, Millard, Hawkins, Gough, Welch, 
Bowen, Wickes, Maxey, Estep, Beckett, Brooke, Dalrymple, 
Smith, Chapman, Rogerson, Edelen, Worthington, Beall, 
Duvall, Barrette, Stevens, Sudler, Cockey, Barnes, Sapping- 
ton, Farquhar, Williams, Hall, Howard, Tyson, Kennedy, 
Lansdale, Lee, Hughes, Wilson, Perry, Reid, Blair and 
Armstrong. 

‘The affairs of our State begin to have an improving 
appearance,’’ proclaimed the Niles Register, under date of 
January 14, 1826. ‘‘A spirit is abroad to favor the making 
of roads and canals; and the bill which passed the Senate, 
almost unanimously, for the political liberation of persons 


38 THE FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 


held in servitude for conscience sake, has been also passed 
by the House of Delegates, 45 to 32; so, at last, a disgraceful 
part of our Constitution is abolished, and Jews are free- 
men. ... Surely, we seem about to commence a new era. 
And, indeed, it is time that we should, for our State has been 
‘advancing backwards for a long while getting one day 
older and two days worse,’ as the saying is.’’ 

Similar expressions of happiness filled the columns of the 
American, Maryland Herald, Hagerstown Free Press and 
other periodicals of the day. But the most jubilant man 
in the State was Thomas Kennedy. He knew that the boast 
of some Christian historians that Maryland was the cradle 
of religious liberty was without foundation. He had so 
characterized such claims whenever advanced, and _ pro- 
claimed the fact that Maryland would have a stained 
escutcheon until the Jewish people, who had been political 
outcasts, could at least share the privileges of their Christian 
brethren. His life’s aim had now been accomplished. 
Kennedy returned to Hagerstown, to the bosom of his family 
and, with fond anticipation, observed the progress of the 
Jewish people in the financial, business and political world. 

Kennedy received a number of gifts as tokens of appreci- 
ation from some of the Jews of Baltimore. He acknowledged 
their receipt by letters. It was his first direct contact with 
Israelites. He composed several stirring odes to ‘‘ Liberty, 
Freedom and Justice,’? which were published in different 
periodicals. With great elation he observed the fight of the 
Catholics in Ireland to free themselves from the tyranny of 
the Protestants. He sent communications abroad to his 
friends denouncing bigotry and fanaticism. Wherever the 
oppressed were, there lay his sympathies; his large heart 
throbbed in harmony with the pulsations of the greater heart 
of humanity. 

When Kennedy returned home he found that President 
John Quincy Adams had appointed him Postmaster of 
Hagerstown. His fellow-citizens, however, wanted him as 
their representative in the General Assembly. He preferred 
his home and literary pursuits. Believing that he could be 


THE FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 39 


of greater service to humanity through the use of his pen, 
he established the Hagerstown Mal, which soon became a 
potent force for good in the State. The insistence of his 
friends, however, that he return to Annapolis, promptly 
brought about his nomination, followed by his almost 
unanimous election to the State Senate of Maryland. In the 
fall of 1827 he took his seat. He was then 51 years of age 
and in his prime. A contemporary describes him as a man 
of medium height, rather portly in build, with the bluest of 
eyes that seemed to pierce through those with whom he spoke. 
He had iron-gray hair; his round, ruddy face which seemed 
continually about to break into a smile, attracted all; his 
magnetic personality kept his friends close to him through- 
out his life. 

Several years later we find Kennedy somewhat strangely 
again occupying a place in the lower House of the Assembly. 
It was characteristic of the man; little did he care for tem- 
poral honors and high places. His desire was to serve and 
he eared little where or what the place was. He felt that he 
was his brother’s keeper and would have taken the lowliest 
position had it meant happiness to sorely stricken souls. 

In 1832 an epidemic of Asiatic cholera spread through the 
United States. It attacked Maryland virulently and one of 
the victims in Washington county was Thomas Kennedy. 
He was stricken on the morning of October 17th and, in a 
few hours, there passed to his heavenly reward the man who 
had fought a hard and noble fight in behalf of the Jewish 
people of his Commonwealth. 

The Baltimore American and Commercial Advertiser 
report his death in a few brief lines on October 20th, 1832. 
In the Hagerstown Free Press, under date of the 17th, is 
found the following: 

‘‘Among the victims is Thomas Kennedy, Esq., editor of 
the Mail and Delegate-elect to the Legislature of Maryland. 
He died a few hours after the attack.’’ 

In the Torch Inght, under date of October 18, is the 
following: 

‘‘Thomas Kennedy died this A.M. He left a large family 


40 THE FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 


and large circle of friends and acquaintances by whom he 
was much respected and will be long and deeply mourned.’’ 

Kennedy’s demise, coming so unexpectedly and swiftly, 
brought deep gloom to his many friends throughout the State. 
The esteem and love with which he was generally held were 
exemplified by the action of the Legislature, in the adoption 
‘ of a motion that each member wear crepe on his left arm 
for 30 days. This motion was passed on January 1, 1832 
(House Journal, Page 6). Its sponsor was Delegate Nicholas 
Brewer of Annapolis. 

Kennedy’s sudden end was not only a sad blow to the 
members of the General Assembly; it was distressing news 
to the people generally. He had endeared himself to them 
by reason of his many martial ballads that had aroused their 
ardor during the War of 1812. Kennedy’s muse had been 
the inspiring voice of the trumpet in gathering together the 
people for common action. He believed that an injustice 
was being perpetrated upon his beloved America, and so 
advised his fellow-townsmen to go forth, like the Maccabeans 
of old, with swords in their hands and with the ‘‘praise of 
God in their mouths.’’ He poured forth patriotic strains 
with a frequency and enthusiasm that won him a country- 
wide fame. On every ship where waves the Stars and 
Stripes his song ‘‘The Impressed Seamen’’ was sung. His 
striking ‘‘Ode on the Conflagration at Washington, August 
24, 1814,’’ was sung in many schools and churches. 

His fellow-citizens knew him as a man who loved his God 
and country and who hated injustice. They knew him to be 
a man who was pious but without bigotry ; who was ambitious 
without greed; patriotic and broad-minded; a man, in whom, 
as the Bard of Avon says, ‘‘The elements so mixed 

. nature might stand up and say to all the world ‘This 
was a man.’ ”’ 

For a long period Kennedy’s remains rested in obscurity. 
With the passage of years and important events the work of 
Kennedy was gradually forgotten; time, as it often does, 
effaces the memory of men’s accomplishments. Small head- 
stones marked his grave and those of his wife and daughter 


THE FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 41 


in the old Presbyterian burial ground in Hagerstown. They 
were in an unfrequented corner overgrown with weeds and 
rambling vines. 

Some ten years ago, Mrs. James Findlay, granddaughter 
of Thomas Kennedy removed the graves to Rose Hill 
Cemetery, in the same city. 

In 1918, the centenary of the introduction of the ‘‘Jew 
Bill’’ by Kennedy aroused to activity a number of the Jewish 
citizens of Washington county, among whom was F. 8. Kahn. 
Through the Morris Brenner Lodge, of the Independent 
Order Brith Sholom of Baltimore, a fund was raised for the 
purchase of a monument. On June Ist, 1919, Kennedy’s 
work was perpetuated by the dedication of this monument 
over the grave of Liberty’s apostle. This memorial to 
Kennedy, a tall granite shaft, was unveiled by Mrs. James 
Findlay. Col. William P. Lane of Washington county, the 
president of the County Historical Society, presided. 
Among the speakers were Senator H. 8. Bomberger and Leo 
Weinberg of Frederick. The Grand Lodge officers of the 
Order of Brith Sholom and a large delegation from Baltimore 
witnessed the ceremonies. 

Several years prior to the unveiling of the monument, 
Mr. Kahn aroused great interest in the subject of Kennedy’s 
legislative struggle by awarding a monetary prize for the 
best essay on Kennedy. It was won by Miss Clara Tucker 
Riley of Annapolis, daughter of Dr. Elihu S. Riley. 

The following memorandum written by Kennedy, May 28, 
1829, the original of which Mrs. Findlay recently discovered 
among old family documents, contains much of interest: 

‘‘Thirty-three years ago, about this very hour, a large 
vessel passed Alexandria and proceeded up the Potomac by 
Washington to Georgetown; and as the Britannia passed 
on the Virginia side of Mason’s Island, a salute was fired, 
which shook the houses in Georgetown and brought her 
citizens down to the wharf in crowds. A boat went ashore, 
and in it, the writer of these lines; and the first person he 
spoke to was to his brother Matthew whom he had not seen 
for many long years. Georgetown was then a little village 


42 THE FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 


without a pavement. Washington was in embryo, those six 
buildings were finished, the President’s House and Capitol 
were not under roof, and one solitary grog shop was all that 
was to be seen in those days, and this was a temporary shed 
in the neighborhood of the President’s House. 

‘‘What a change has thirty-three years made in Washing- 
ton, in Georgetown, in the United States, in the world, in 
my own situation. There I was, a Caledonian laddie—a 
stranger, a wanderer. The wanderer is now a Senator of 
Maryland. The stranger is now the father of an American 
family. The Caledonian laddies’ locks once yellowish fair 
begin to assume the looks of the thistle-down, and long 
before thirty-three years more are gone and past, they will 
be laid low in the dust, and if he sleeps not in the land of 
his fathers—it will be in the land of his children. 

‘‘And though misfortune and distress have often visited 
him yet he has been blessed beyond his deserts, blessed with 
the choice of his heart, in his Rosamond, blessed in his 
children, blessed in friends, firm, faithful and affectionate 
friends—blessed with the confidence of his fellow-citizens 
who have elected him to many responsible stations, and with 
the confidence of the Government of Maryland and the 
Government of the United States. He has been often 
gratified in seeing the principles of Republicanism in triumph. 
In the election of Thomas Jefferson in 1800; in the elections 
of Madison and Monroe, and lately and gloriously in the 
election of Andrew Jackson—and he has seen those principles 
triumph in Maryland in 1800 and to 1812, and again in 1819, 
to the present time. He has seen religious liberty triumph 
in Maryland—he has seen the Jews restored and placed on a 
footing with the Christians and he has seen the reign of 
prejudice and bigotry put to an end in Ireland and the 
Catholics set free and raised to an equality with their 
Protestant brethren. With all their blessings and gratifi- 
eations he is satisfied, and now asks neither honor nor wealth 
—all he asks now is that wisdom which cometh from above; 
wishes for content, without riches, without poverty, and as 
he has been preserved through past years he cheerfully 


THE FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 43 


commits the future to the disposal of Him who rules in 
heaven and on earth. 
THos. KENNEDY, 
Castle Hope, 
Potomac St., Hagerstown, Md. 
May 28, 1829. 


Family: Rosamond Harris, home; Grace Carmelia, home; 
John Francis (to graduate next month at West Point 
Military Academy); Howard (graduated April, 1828, 
Medical College, Baltimore, now residing in Williamsport) ; 
Catherine Sim, home; Rosamond Thomas, home; Amelia 
Thomas, died an infant, in 1801; William Thomas, a year 
old, 1803; second Wiliam Thomas a year old, 1805; Lawrence 
Ludlow, four years, 1816. 

Bless them all. 

Hagerstown, Maryland, 
Sunday eve., May 28, 1826. 
ake 


CHAPTER V 
FIRST JEWS TO HOLD OFFICE 


As a result of Thomas Kennedy’s victory for religious 
freedom, the voices of men opposed to the Jews’ progress 
were temporarily silenced. In the fall of 1826. two 
distinguished sons of Israel—Solomon Etting and Jacob I. 
Cohen—were elected members of the City Council. The 
population of Baltimore in that year was about 65,000. 
There were about two hundred Jewish people in the State, 
representing a capital of about a half million dollars. 

In October, 1825, General Andrew Jackson was nominated 
by the Legislature of Tennessee as a candidate for President 
of the United States in 1828, and all the elections held in 
Maryland during the interval turned upon the Presidential 
question. Both administration and _  anti-administration 
parties held State conventions in Baltimore during 1827, and 
organized for the approaching struggle. In the _ pro- 
administration convention, held in Baltimore, July 23, 1827, 
the name of Solomon Etting appears as one of the delegates. 
He was a prominent figure at the convention, for the passage 
of the ‘‘Jew Bill’’ at Annapolis the year before had given 
him courage to engage actively in political enterprises. 

A slight reaction (which was but temporary) occurred 
in this connection, when a committee consisting of ten Jews 
appeared in Annapolis in the fall of 1829 to petition the 
Legislature for permission to incorporate the Baltimore 
Hebrew Congregation. When the memorial was read for the 
first time and the Speaker put the question to a vote, it was 
rejected by a sweeping majority. This was a bitter blow 
to the members of the congregation who had organized in 
Baltimore for divine worship at the home of Zalman Rehine, 


whose house was on Holliday street, near Pleasant. There 
44 


FIRST JEWS TO HOLD OFFICE 45 


were undoubtedly meeting places for worship elsewhere 
before this meeting, but the records show this to be the first 
attempt to incorporate a synagogue. Among those who 
attended the meetings at Zalman Rehine’s home were John 
M. Dyer, Moses Millem, Lewis Silver, Levi Benjamin, Joseph 
Osterman, Joseph Ancker, Levy Collmus, Tobias Myers and 
Jacob Aaron. 

It is probable that the propaganda put forth by the 
Federalists in the General Assembly was responsible for the 
frustration of these men. There was a fight on at that time 
for greater political representation from the City of 
Baltimore—a familiar question even in this decade. It was 
being hotly contested and the Federalists strongly opposed 
the measure. They also endeavored to incite prejudice 
against the ‘‘ Baltimore Jacobins’’ by declaring that the State 
contained one-third foreigners, ‘‘who entertain strong 
prejudices in favor of the governments under which they 
were born, and whose main object in taking up a residence 
in this country is to accumulate riches, which the disturbed 
state of Europe for many years past renders it impossible 
for them to do there. The true contest is now between 
Baltimore and the counties, between the city and the county; 
and the question which every voter, when he goes to the polls, 
ought to put to himself is: ‘Shall I vote for the men who, 
by effecting the changes which they have prepared and 
designed, will place the great agricultural State of Maryland 
at the feet of the merchants, the bank speculators, the brokers, 
the lottery office-seekers, the foreigners, and the mob of 
Baltimore? Or shall I give my support to those who will 
maintain, in opposition to them, the honor, the dignity, and 
independence of the cultivators of the soil?’ ’’ 

There is color to the theory that the Federalists caused the 
defeat of the memorial, when one considers the fact that on 
several occasions, a number of them had repeatedly blocked 
Kennedy in his fights both in the House and Senate. They 
sneeringly referred to his bill as the ‘“‘Jew Baby.’’ 

It took several days of active work among the members of 
the General Assembly to convince them of the great injustice 


46 FIRST JEWS TO HOLD OFFICE 


which had been done the petitioners in their demand for 
incorporation. Governor Thomas King Carroll, be it said to 
his credit, assisted in explaining to certain members the un- 
wisdom of such a reactionary step. The vote was subse- 
quently reconsidered and the bill became a law. The 
memorial provided for the granting to the ‘‘scattered 
Israelites of the City of Baltimore the right to incorporate 
the congregation’’ and the names of John M. Dyer, Moses 
Millem, Lewis Silver, Levi Benjamin, and Joseph Osterman 
appeared as the electors of the new organization. 

To follow the activities of the Etting and Cohen families, 
after the election to the City Council of two of: their members, 
is to become familiar with the business, civic and charitable 
history of the city. Both families settled here between the 
period of the Revolution and the beginning of the Nineteenth 
Century. Jacob I. Cohen, Sr., had come to America in 1773. 
He was a native of Rhenish Prussia. Solomon Etting was 
born in Frankfort-on-the-Main, Germany, in 1724, and came 
to America in 1758. Contrary to popular belief in this 
State, Portuguese and Spanish Jews, who formed the initial 
strata of Jewish settlement in most of the American towns a 
century or more ago, are conspicuously absent in this city. 
No such names are found in the early records or directories. 
Most all of the Jewish immigrants hailed from Holland or 
Germany. A number of the earlier settlers came from other 
American cities or the West Indies, while others came 
directly to Baltimore from Europe. About a decade after 
the passage of Kennedy’s ‘‘Jew Bill’’ there was a large 
emigration of Jews from Germany. In the early forties a 
stream of Jews poured into the city, many of these coming 
direct from Bavaria. They took up their homes, with few 
exceptions, in the eastern section of the city. Minyans were 
held whenever possible and none forgot Rosh ha Shanah and 
Yom Kippur. The schochet of the town was Wolf Marschutz 
and about 1820 Gabriel Isaac was the mohel. The ritual 
and practices of Orthodox Judaism were followed by 
practically all of the Jews. 

Jacob I. Cohen, Sr., had lived in Lancaster, Pa., Charleston. 


‘ 


FIRST JEWS TO HOLD OFFICE 47 


8. C., and Richmond, Va. (where he was one of the early 
members of the Beth Shalom Congregation). His brother, 
Israel I. Cohen, joined him in business in Richmond. In 
1808 after the demise of Israel I. Cohen, his widow, who had 
been Judith Solomon of Bristol, England, removed to Balti- 
more. She brought with her one daughter, Maria Cohen, and 
sixsons: Jacob I. Cohen, Jr., Phillip I., Mendes I., Benjamin 
I., David I., and Joshua I. Cohen. The eldest. son founded 
the banking firm of Jacob I. Cohen, Jr., and Bros. The 
family soon became well known in Baltimore. Jacob I. Co- 
hen took an active part in civic affairs; his likable person- 
ality made a profound impression upon his neighbors and 
acquaintances. Immediately after the removal of the disabil- 
ities at Annapolis the people demanded that he be a candidate 
for the City Council. He was elected by a large vote and 
after serving several times was elevated to the presidency 
of the branch. 

Serving in public office was not a new accomplishment for 
the family, as the elder Mr. Cohen had occupied a similar 
post when living in Richmond. He had also served as a 
Magistrate. The elder Mr. Cohen had been a soldier of dis- 
tinction in the Revolutionary War and the Christian people 
of Baltimore soon learned about the splendid record of this 
Jew from the lips of Southern visitors who passed through 
the city. 

After serving several terms in the City Council, Mr. Cohen 
was appointed Commissioner of Finance. He was one of 
the founders of Baltimore’s public school system, being the 
first treasurer of the School Board. He was also elected a 
director of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, and became 
the first president of the railroad leading to Philadelphia, 
Pa. He filled a number of other offices of trust, as did his 
‘brother, Joshua I. Cohen, an eminent physician of his day. 

The Cohen collection of Egyptian antiquities at the Johns 
Hopkins University were collected in the Nile Valley by Col. 
Mendes I. Cohen, who died several years ago. Recently, Miss 
Eleanor S. Cohen, a sister of Col. Cohen, and one of the last 
survivors of the distinguished family, donated to the Mary- 


48 FIRST JEWS TO HOLD OFFICE 


land Historical Society, a most interesting and unique collec- 
tion of the family heirlooms, which has attracted much at- 
tention. 

That the proceedings in the Legislature relating to the 
““Jew Bill’’ deeply stirred the members of the Cohen family 
ean be gleaned from the following letter sent to Mr. E. S. 
Thomas by Jacob I. Cohen, from Dec. 10, 1818. The letter 
follows: 


EK. 8. Thomas, Esq., 
Annapolis, Md. 
DEAR Sir: 

Noticing the proceedings of the present legislature of 
Md., I observe a committee has been appointed in the house 
of Delegates to bring in a Bill ‘‘to extend to persons pro- 
fessing the Jewish Religion the same civil privileges that are 
enjoyed by other religious sects’’ and that yourself with Mr. 
Kennedy by whom the motion was made and Mr. Brecken- 
ridge compose that committee. 

Having the pleasure of a personal acquaintance with you I 
am induced from the importance of the subject to address you. 

You cannot be aware Sir from not having felt the pres- 
sure of religious intolerance, of the emotions excited in the 
breast of an Israelite whenever the theme of liberty of con- 
science is eanvassed—the subject of religion being the nearest 
and most vital to the soul of every sectarian it awakens every 
spark of feeling in support of those unalienable rights which 
the very nature of man forbids a transfer. On the question 
of the extension of religious freedom to any sect or denomin- 
ation, the Jew feels with solicitude for a Brother sufferer and 
with the anxiety of him for whom the subject is intended par- 
ticularly to operate, exalts in his success or sinks deeper than 
before with the pangs which oppression had thrown over him, 
and in a tenfold degree bends him below his former station. 

Judge then Sir how alive to the lightest sound in a pros- 
pect of relief from the shackles of temporal jurisdiction to- 
wards the enjoyment of rights in common with his fellowmen 
is the soul of a man heretofore deprived of those privileges, 


FIRST JEWS TO HOLD OFFICE 49 


all the dormant faculties of his mind are then elicited and 
he experiences sensations only felt by those similarly situated 
and which in extent cannot be comprehended by those who 
always possessed those privileges and being thus in possession 
have never had cause to feel the want of. 

The motion of Mr. Kennedy at the same time that it reminds 
us of the indignity of our situation in the States also brings 
to mind the many blessings our profession enjoys in this 
eountry of lberty—that by the Constitution of the United 
States an Israelite is placed on the same footing with any 
other citizen of the Union and ean be elevated to the highest 
station in the gift of the government or in the people such 
toleration is duly appreciated. On the other hand we are 
not insensible of the protection in our persons and property 
even under the laws of Maryland still as those obnoxious parts 
of its Constitution were produced only in times of darkness 
and prejudice why are they continued as blots on the present 
enlightened period and on the honor of the State in direct 
opposition also to the features and principles in the Con- 
stitution of the United States. 

I can searcely admit a doubt that on a moment’s consider- 
ation and reflection a change will be made as the Prayer of 
Justice and reason. 

The grievance complained of and for which redress is asked, 
is that part of the Constitution of Maryland, which requir- 
ing a declaration of belief in the Christian Religion prevents 
a Jew accepting any office his fellowmen might elect him to 
or think him deserving the enjoyment of—he is thus in- 
eapaciated because he cannot abjwre the principles instilled 
in him of worshipping the Almighty according to the dictates 
of his own conscience and take an oath of belief in other 
tenets as if such declaration of Belief made him a better man 
or one more capable of exercising the duties of the office which 
the want of that declaration would deprive him of because 
he maintains his unalienable rights with a steadfast and 
upright hand—because he cannot consent to act hypocritically 
he is deemed unworthy to be trusted and to be as it were dis- 
franchised—thus incapacitating on the very grounds that 


50 FIRST JEWS TO HOLD OFFICE 


ought to entitle him to confidence in the discharge of any 
duty he might be called upon to perform viz: a complete 
independence and unbiased judgment formed on the broad 
foundation of moral rectitude. 

To you I’m sure I need not point out the effects resulting 
from an equal enjoyment of civil rights instead of being 
borne down by a state of despondency and consequent in- 
action, those talents idle which otherwise would prompt every 
effort to a spirit of ambition exhibiting the appreciation of 
his standing as a Freeman and observing the contrast with 
that when fettered by temporal authority. 

In times of peril and war the Jews have borne the privations 
incident to such times and their best exertions have been given 
to their utmost, in defense of the common cause—See the 
Israelite in the ranks of danger, exposing his life in the 
defense of the Country of his adoption or of his nativity and 
then ask the views of the man in such exposure—the cause 
alone—he bears the brunt of the battle and the toils of the 
day with the knowledge of having discharged his duty; he re- 
tires with the pleasing consolation of mental correctness and 
the silent approbation of his own conscience—here he rests— 
having attained the summit of his expectations—Sensible of 
his worth, his Commander would offer him promotion the 
honorable and only boon a Soldier aspires to—he cannot— 
vain are his wishes—the State under whose banners he has 
fought and bled debars him its acceptance—here Sir, is an 
evidence of the injustice of the act of the Constitution, and the 
effect perhaps of that inaction which I have noticed above. 

Still stranger tho are the cases requiring the decision of a 
Jury, look there at the situation of a man professing the 
Jewish Religion—TI wish not to be understood that he could not 
obtain justice, such is not my meaning—but he is to be judged 
by men whom perhaps prejudice might influence in their 
verdict and the very course of justice be impeded by mere 
caprice incident to strong individual feeling. 

By the present system a Jew is deprived of a seat in that 
body where by a liberal construction of matters and cireum- 
stances and a free interchange of sentiment on the broad 


FIRST JEWS TO HOLD OFFICE 51 


basis of both Jewish and Christian doctrine to ‘‘do unto 
others as you would have others do unto you’’ might those 
prejudices be combatted and justice satisfied in its strictest 
sense. [I cannot name the unworthy equality a Jew is placed 
on trial by Jury. On this great question of right, the 
guarantee of Freedom and political liberty I will leave you 
to judge as a legislator and an American Freeman. 

Your attention I need not solicit on this occasion, being 
satisfied of the liberality of your views and the pleasure it 
would afford you in the opportunity of redressing the 
grievances of your Constituents—A bill relating to an equality 
of rights intended for the present purposes was reported in 
the Senate of Maryland during the Session of 1816 and was 
not acted upon—I do not know why—I confidently trust 
however that the present legislature will take up the subject 
with the consideration it merits. 

Whatever may be the fate of the proposed bill permit me 
to request, if not improper that the Ayes and Nays be taken 
and placed on record on the general question as well as on 
any previous one, which might involve such general question 
or be indicative of its final result. 

Before I conclude I would remark that previous to my 
commencing this letter a friend in this city applied to me for 
such papers as I had in my possession in any way relating to 
the object proposed by Mr. Kennedy’s motion—these I gave 
him, I would have been glad to have forwarded to you with 
this but as I learn they will be laid before the committee, it 
will answer the same purpose as you will then have an 
opportunity of examining them. 

I am, 
Dear Sir, 
Yours with great Respect, 
(signed) J. I. COHEN. 


In January, 1819, a writer in the National Advocate, 
published in New York City, attributed the defeat of Mr. 
Kennedy’s bill in the Maryland Legislature to the hostility 
of Catholics. Mr. Cohen quickly came to the defense of the 


52 FIRST JEWS TO HOLD OFFICE 


Catholics of Baltimore. In a letter to Mordecai M. Noah, that 
distinguished American Jewish patriot and author, Mr. Cohen 
said his opinion was ‘‘founded on the liberal expression of 
sentiments by the Catholics within the circle of my acquaint- 
ance in this city.’’ The letter follows: 


Baltimore, Feb., 2nd, 1819. 
M. M. Noah, Esq., New York. 

Dear Sir: 

I have duly noticed in the National Advocate the 
remarks on the failure of the Jew Bill before the Legislature 
of this state in that past hearing on the Catholics on the 
supposition of their influence in the rejection of the bill 
permit me to say is not so. J think the impressions are in- 
correct—my opinion is founded on the liberal expressions of 
sentiment by the Catholics within the circle of my ac- 
quaintance in this city and who are among the principal of 
that religious sect in this state—and on the regret evinced 
on the failure of the attempt.—In the Senate on Gen. 
Winder’s motion, Mr. Taney, a Catholic addressed that body 
in eloquent strains in favor of abolishing test oaths universally 
—and in fact if the members of our legislature could have 
brought themselves to have acted independently without 
having the fear of losing their election before their eyes, and 
had followed the honest dictates of their conscience, no doubt 
the bill would have passed—but in lieu of being entirely 
divested of polities, contrary to expectations it assumed that 
aspect, and if you will recollect the very slender federal pre- 
ponderance in the political affairs of Maryland, you will with 
me see the cause of the rejection of the Bill but the prospects 
of the Jews in Maryland, are brighter than ever before—and 
in the Senate had the motion been special instead of for uni- 
versal toleration, it might have succeeded, several members 
voting in the negative, who would have given an affirmative 
had the object been special, tolerating the Jews, the motion 
in the Senate on the score of general abolition of test, was 
made contrary to our express wish we wanted it on our special 
right and no other and on the results of the question as taken 


FIRST JEWS TO HOLD OFFICE on 


we were not surprised. The Editors of the public papers in 
this city are all very favorably disposed towards the rights we 
demand and you will bear in mind that notwithstanding this 
being a state of Catholic settlement and this city an Arch- 
bishopric not a syllable against the bill was even noticed or 
published during the whole time the result was pending—or 
before or since. The Federal Gazette has received a communi- 
cation addressed to the editor of the National Advocate with 
a view of correcting the impressions under which the editor 
has made his remarks. I mentioned to Mr. Gwynn that no 
doubt by this time you might have been informed of the 
mistaken grounds of rejection and as soon as time would 
permit notice no doubt would be made of the same, and that 
the Editor of the Advocate would certainly prefer doing so 
voluntarily than it should be elicited by any public address 
to him. In the meantime, therefore, the Gazette has merely 
anounced the receipt of the communication and ‘‘for want of 
room’’ it will be left out until there may be no necessity for its 
appearing in consequence of an explanation which may antici- 
pate the communication. I have thought proper thus to notice 
the circumstance to you, leaving it entirely to act as your own 
opinion may point out. Before concluding permit me to 
mention the pleasure given here on perusing the remarks on 
the condition of the Jews and the question generally with the 
exception of that part relative to the Catholics. 
Yours very sincerely, 
J. I. COHEN, JR. 


In 1812, when an attempt was made by the British General 
Ross to invade Baltimore, the Cohen boys, as well as a 
number of the young men of our faith were found in the 
front lines fighting the enemy. Their patriotic spirit on this 
occasion served them in good stead for it was chiefly from 
Baltimore that Thomas Kennedy found his first allies when 
battling in Annapolis for religious freedom in behalf of the 
Jewish people. 

The Ettings, probably more than any other Jewish family 
living in Baltimore town, felt the political boycott against 


54 FIRST JEWS TO HOLD OFFICE 


the Jews. This was because one of their number, Reuben 
Etting, had been appointed in the year 1801 United States 
Marshal for Maryland by President Thomas Jefferson. 
When it looked in 1798 that the United States would have to 
wage war with France, the ‘‘ Independent Blues,’’ which had 
reorganized upon call of the Federal authorities, elected 
Reuben Etting their captain. Hence, the inability of a Jew 
to hold the smallest office under the State government was a 
humilating thought. 

The most prominent member of the family, however, was 
Solomon Etting. He married Rachel, the daughter of 
Joseph Simon, an Indian trader of Lancaster, and one of 
the founders of the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts. 
She died January 14, 1790, in Lancaster, Pa. Solomon 
Ktting came to Baltimore at the age of twenty-five. He 
engaged in the hardware business in a store on South Calvert 
street. In 1805 he purchased a house on Market street 
(Baltimore street) between Howard and Eutaw streets. He 
resided there until May, 1841, when he purchased the house 
on West Lexington street, No. 4 Pascault Row, where he 
resided until the time of his death, August 6, 1847. It was 
probably about this time that Etting married Rachel Gratz, 
daughter of Barnard Gratz. 

The earliest political connection of Solomon Etting with 
his countrymen is revealed by the record showing a meeting 
held in Baltimore town on July 27, 1796, to give unified 
expression to their disapproval of the treaty which Jay had 
concluded with Great Britain. A committee consisting of 
David MeMechen, Solomon Etting, Alexander McKim, 
David Stodder, Jas. A. Buchanan, Adam Fonerden, and John 
Steel was appointed to call on President Washington and 
present the resolutions. 

Solomon Etting and Levi Solomon formally acquired 
possession of a plot of land used by the Jewish people for a 
burial ground. The cemetery was located in the block 
bounded by Harford avenue, Monument Street, Jew Alley 
and Abraham Street. It had been used as a burial ground 
some years before the conveyance; Etting and Solomon held 


FIRST JEWS TO HOLD OFFICE 55 


the land for the Jewish community because the State had not 
recognized officially a Jewish congregation. In 1832 both 
men took title to a small plot of land on the north side of 
North avenue about sixty yards east of Pennsylvania avenue. 
For years it was used by the family as its burial ground, 
although the tombstones reveal the graves of other Baltimore 
Jews. 

Solomon Etting was one of the founders of the Baltimore 
and Ohio Railroad and a director of many other financial 
institutions and charitable societies. The Baltimore Sun, 
August 9, 1847, speaking of Etting’s death, said: 

‘“Our obituary column today records the death of this 
venerable citizen, at the age of eighty-three. Mr. Etting was 
a native, we believe, of York, Pa., but he resided in Baltimore 
for about sixty years. During the whole of that period, up 
to a month of his death, his career was one of unwearied 
activity. He possessed, in the most eminent degree, that 
first of civic virtues, public zeal, and his name is connected 
with every important enterprise ‘which looked to the 
promotion of the city’s prosperity. His judgment was sound 
and clear above that of most men; his habits of business were 
models of industry; and his integrity, impartiality, and 
rigid sense of justice, were never doubted or suspected. 
Although long past eighty years of age, he was chosen 
president of the board of control and review, under the new 
assessment of the real and personal estate, and continued, 
until confined to his bed, to discharge the responsible duties 
of the important post with an industry, fidelity and perspi- 
eacity most remarkable, indeed, in one so aged, but perfectly 
characteristic of him. In his family and social relations, 
Mr. Etting was equally worthy of honor and imitation.’’ 

The historian of the Masonic Lodge No. 48, has written: 
‘“‘He was a man of sterling integrity, of great wit and 
drollery and was beloved and respected by a large circle of 
friends and acquaintances. He was distinguished for his 
considerable and indiscriminated charities and was in his old 
age affectionately hailed by all as ‘Father Htting.’ ”’ 

Ever true to his traditions, the Jew made his true spirit 


56 FIRST JEWS TO HOLD OFFICE 


felt by the organization of synagogues, philanthropic 
societies, and the like, in the period following the death of 
Thomas Kennedy. Not in vain have the Jewish people in 
Goluth won for themselves a reputation for giving Zedokah, 
—a characteristic of the Jew frequently commented upon 
with admiration by the non-Jew. 

In Baltimore several Jewish names are found as incorpo- 
rators of the charitable Marine Society, organized and 
chartered by the General Assembly, as far back as 1796. 
The objects of the society were ‘‘the relief and aid of the 
of the distressed widows and orphans of the members.’’ 
Ephraim Merchant, Jacob Reese, Jacob Méyers, Jacob F. 
Levy were among the incorporators. On March 4, 1834, 
there was incorporated the United Hebrew Benevolent 
Society of Baltimore. The charter for the society shows the 
following names: Simon Eyting, Joseph Osterman, Leon 
Dyer, Jacob Ezekiel, S. I. Block, Joseph Simpson, Levi 
Flaut, Levi Benjamin, Aaron Reutter, Benjamin Seixas, 
Leopold Schneeberg, Selig Strupp, H. M. C. Ellion, Emil 
Niewiehl, L. Hammerschlak, Levi Hess, M. Tobias Meyers, 
Solomon Benjamin, H. Hein, Wolf Myers, Levi Keothen, 
Abraham Leon, Lazer Levi, Lewis Myers, Joseph Jacobs, 
Meyer Hertzburg, A. D. Wachman, Jonas Baumann, Joseph 
J. Posnanskie, Isaac Strupp, Julius Kahn, John M. Dyer, 
Solomon Hunt, David Taub, Jacob Aaron, Samuel Muntzer, 
Michael Heilbrunn, Solomon Carvolho, Joseph Anger, Levi 
Collmus, Jacob Leiser, Morris A. Cohen, Jonas Friedenwalt, 
S. A. Waterman, Gustabus M. Heinwald, Kritz Kayser and 
Carle Schlectern. 

The year 1846 brought ominous clouds on the political 
horizon and it looked as if the United States was destined 
to wage a prolonged war with Mexico. The young Jews of 
Baltimore, appreciative of what Columbia meant to them 
and their people, and realizing the plight of the Union, 
promptly planned to organize a company of volunteers. 
The New York Herald of July 15 contained the following 
item, after the call of President Polk for 50,000 volunteers. 

‘‘Baltimore, July 3. Among the companies which have 


FIRST JEWS TO HOLD OFFICE 57 


been formed here, a volunteer corps of Jews attracts 
particular attention. Although composed for the most part 
of immigrants they have given, by the raising of this company 
to fight with the native militia on behalf of our institutions, 
a splendid instance of their love and devotion for these and 
for their new fatherland. Yes, this love for the fame and 
independence of our country has been displayed all the more 
pointedly as they have organized their company by selecting 
one not of their faith as their chief officer, namely, Captain 
Carroll, who was paymaster of the Fifth Regiment, who 
willingly resigned his position to accept the command of this 
patriotic company of volunteers. Its other officers are: 
Mr. Levi Benjamin, First Lieutenant; Joseph Simpson, 
Second Lieutenant; Samuel G. Goldsmith, Third Lieutenant ; 
S. Eytinge, First Sergeant, and Dr. J. Horwitz, Surgeon.’’ 

Later in the same year, the first seed of what may be styled 
organized charity was sown. Through the active work of 
Leon Dyer, the United Hebrew Assistance Society was 
launched. Leon Dyer, who was chosen president, was the 
son of John M. Dyer, who had been one of the organizers 
of the Baltimore Hebrew Congregation. The young man 
was apparently well liked in the community wherein he 
lived. His name appears on many committees, whose 
objectives were the improvement and betterment of the 
eommunity. He held a number of minor public offices and 
during the famous Bread riots served as Acting Mayor of 
Baltimore. In the Texas Revolution for independence he 
was awarded a commission of Major by the War Department. 
He served on General Scott’s staff during the Seminole up- 
rising. He was appointed to a coloneley in the Mexican 
War and suffered a severe wound in battle. 

The society for the education of poor Jewish orphans was 
organized February 8, 1852. Its first president was Louis 
Hammerslaugh, who was succeeded by Jacob Gazan and 
Jonas Friedenwald. Several years later the Hebrew Ladies’ 
Sewing Society was organized with the following officers: 
President, Mrs. H. Hecht; Vice-President, Miss H. Benjamin; 
Secretary, Mrs. F. Schloss; Treasurer, Mrs. J. Behrends. 


CHAPTER VI 
A SPIRIT OF TOLERATION 


A spirit of liberalism seemed to have permeated the minds 
and consciousness of both city and state legislators, following 
the removal of the civil and political disabilities at Annapolis 
in 1826. Shadowy and blurred connections between Church 
and State seemed to be gradually vanishing and the Jews of 
Baltimore were warmly welcomed to the ranks of citizenship 
and office-holders. Several poems written by Kennedy 
relative to the splendid and heroic qualities of the Jew, 
which have been printed in publications outside of Maryland, 
were reprinted in journals of this State. One of his poems, 
which had been composed by Kennedy immediately after the 
first rejection of the ‘‘Jew Bill’’ and published in the 
Franklin Gazette, Philadelphia, ran as follows: 


‘‘What! Still reject the fated race, 
Thus long denied repose— 
What! Madly striving to efface 
The rights that heaven bestows. 


Say, flows not in each Jewish vein, 
Unchecked—without control— 
A tide as pure, as free from stain 
As warms the Christian soul? 


Do ye not yet the times discern, 
That these shall cease to roam, 
That Shiloh pledged for their return, 
Will bring his ransomed home? 


Be error quick to darkness hurl’d! 


No more with hate pursue, 
58 


A SPIRIT OF TOLERATION 59 


For He who died to save the world, 
Immanuel—was a Jew.”’ 


In 1847 the General Assembly, spurred on to activity in 
a desire to remove from the statute books some of the 
objectionable measures which had been left as relics of a 
‘‘darker age’’ proceeded to action. A_ discrimination 
enacted in 1717, relative to the admissibility of evidence of 
slaves and certain others, when Christian white persons were 
concerned, was repealed. 

In the historic Constitutional convention of 1851 it was 
maintained by numerous delegates that to predicate such 
civil rights as the privilege to give testimony and to serve as 
a juror, on a belief in future rewards and punishments, was 
an interference with religious freedom. The conscience of 
man must and should be free, it was urged, and no human 
agency should fetter it. The mere avowal of unbelief in 
future rewards and punishments, it was asserted, itself 
revealed an independence which attested to truth, conviction 
and sincerity. An amendment was finally adopted that no 
witness or juror should be incompetent who believes in an 
Almighty God and reward and punishment in this world or 
the world to come. | 

The oath of office remained in the Constitution as it has 
been amended by the General Assembly in 1826. If one was 
a Jew, a belief in future rewards and punishments had to be 
professed ; if a Christian, a belief in that religion. 

During the debate in the Constitutional Convention of 
1864, a delegate urged the adoption of an amendment 
requiring a belief in the existence of a God and the future 
state of rewards and punishments, without making any 
special mention of the Jew. He declared that the object of 
his amendment was to get rid of the provision which singled 
out the Jew and provided the mode in which he should 
declare his belief. He maintained that Jews were a large 
and respectable class of society and that an invidious mention 
was made of their religion. 

Other delegates went so far as to argue that there ought 


60 A SPIRIT OF TOLERATION 


not to be any reference to the Christian religion. They 
based their objection on the postulate that there should be 
no mingling of Church and State. All religions should be 
treated alike and no one sect given preference over any other. 

Despite the fact the word Jew was taken out of the 
Constitution, the allusion to Christianity was not removed 
until 1867, when the present Constitution was adopted. The 
Legislature is inhibited by the Constitution from prescribing 
any provision for those taking a public office other than a 
declaration of a belief in the existence of a God. By an act 
passed in 1854, which is still retained in the Code, the oath 
of office is required to be practically the same as in the 
Constitution of 1851. The present Constitution which 
governs us, however, is found to be in direct conflict with this 
provision, hence, it cannot be regarded as law. 

There have been changes enacted by the Legislature in 
the method of administering the oath. In 1896, a Christian 
witness was required to place his hand upon the pages of. the 
open Bible or New Testament; a Jew was required to place 
his hand upon the Pentateuch. By an act passed in 1898, 
a witness is merely required to hold up his hand in recog- 
nition of the solemnity of the act, except where the form is 
not practicable, or when some other mode is more binding on 
the conscience of the swearer. Imprecatory words such as 
‘‘So Help Me God’’ are forbidden. The approved form now 
is: ‘“‘In the presence of Almighty God, I do solemnly 
promise and declare that the evidence I shall give before the 
Court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth.’’ 

Section 11, of Article 3, of our State Constitution provides 
that no minister or preacher of any religious denomination 
shall serve as a member of the General Assembly. Religious 
bodies are also prohibited from acquiring more than five 
acres of land without legislative sanction, under Article 38. 

That some progress has been made in the past century in 
liberalizing the Sunday laws is evidenced by the enactment 
of Chapter 700 of the Acts of 1920. The law permits the 
sale by retailers of certain articles theretofore prohibited. 


A SPIRIT OF TOLERATION 61 


It amended the so-called Blue Laws, enacted in 1723, which 
provided among other things, that ‘‘any person in the 
province who shall wittingly, maliciously and advisedly, by 
writing or speaking, blaspheme God or the Holy Trinity, 
Shall for the first offense be bored through the tongue; for 
the second offense, shall be stigmatized by burning the middle 
of the forehead with the letter ‘B,’ and for the third offense, 
the offender shall suffer death without benefit of clergy.’’ In 
addition to these punishments the offender was subject to a 
heavy fine. 

These so-called Blue Laws were enacted at a time when 
religious prejudices were deeply imbedded in the hearts and 
minds of men. The Puritan and the Cavalier, the Pilgrim 
and the Quaker, although they fied from the mother country 
to escape persecution, were the first to force their fanatical 
views upon the minority. Their view of religious toleration, 
in the day of the Blue Law enactment in Maryland was 
certainly not in accordance with the spirit of justice as it is 
recognized by thinking minds. These men did not realize 
that civil rights should not be predicated upon religious 
opinion, in the language of Thomas Jefferson, ‘‘any more 
than on opinions in physics or geometry.’’ That the pro- 
scribing of a citizen as unworthy of public confidence by 
imposing incapacities merely because he did not accept the 
divinity of the Holy Trinity was certainly not consonant with 
the spirit of liberty. The right to worship God in any man- 
ner one sees fit was not considered a natural right of man- 
kind. Indeed, even today, there is a tendency in some quar- 
ters to make Christianity a state religion. In order to effec- 
tuate this, it is proposed to bring the Holy Bible into the 
publie school and gradually effect the consolidation of Church 
and State. 

Religious freedom, which was won after so bitter a struggle 
ought not to be surrendered in this age without unyielding 
resistance. Gigantic efforts are required to remove prejudices. 
Only by education and enlightenment can mists of super- 
stition and bigotry be cleared. The present is never as 
strong and adamant as the past. Only the passing of time 


62 A SPIRIT OF TOLERATION 


ean change conditions which seem fixed and permanent. 
The pages of history reveal that in different periods, heroic 
figures usually appear, who are prepared to lay down their 
lives for the rights of mankind. In crucial periods of his 
history, the Jew has had such noble souls come forward to 
champion his cause. England gave him Cromwell and Sheil; 
France, Mirabeau and Duport; Maryland, Kennedy and 
MeMahon. 

Unlike a number of States of this Union, Maryland does not 
legally recognize the Jewish Sabbath. Sunday laws are, of 
course, necessary for the Christians in order that they may 
observe their Sabbath with due solemnity and‘in accordance 
with the spirit of our Constitution. What reason, however, 
is there for a store, in an exclusively Jewish section of the 
city, which is closed on Saturday, to be prohibited from 
keeping open on Sunday? 

As far back as 1887, the General Assembly of our neighbor- 
ing State of Virginia passed a law providing that ‘‘any per- 
son who conscientiously believes that the seventh day of the 
week ought to be observed as a Sabbath and actually re- 
frains from all secular business and labor on that day could 
engage in work or business on Sunday.’’ One performing 
work on Sunday, however, cannot compel an apprentice or 
servant not of his belief to work on Sunday, and providing, 
further, that the peace and rest of any other person must not 
be disturbed. True Virginians point with pride to this 
enlightened and progressive legislation. The spirit of men 
like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Edmund Pendelton 
and George Wythe appears to hover over the Dominion 
State. They were liberal and tolerant in their beliefs, and 
with voice and pen declared that legislators and rulers, civil 
as well as ecclesiastical, were fallible and uninspired men, 
and should not be permitted to assume dominion over the 
faith of others. These principles these men put into the 
Virginia laws as far back as 1785 and are now known as Sec- 
tion 34 of the Virginia Code. These statutes have been 
shining examples to legislators in all parts of the United 
States. 


A SPIRIT OF TOLERATION 63 


Certain laws must rest on enlightened public policy, and on 
the guiding principle of non-interference with religious lib- 
erty. They must not rest on the creed, dogma or tenets of 
any one religion. The Sunday laws of our State give the 
Christian religion an advantage over other religions. This 
situation is commented upon in the celebrated mase of Jude- 
find vs. State of Maryland, decided on January 23, 1894 
(78th Maryland Reports, page 510). The facts of that case 
are as follows: Judefind was arrested on a warrant issued 
by a Justice of the Peace of Kent County, for husking corn 
on Sunday. He was tried, convicted and fined $5.00 and 
costs, in accordance with the provisions of the Public General 
Laws. Chief Judge Boyd, who delivered the opinion, said: 

‘We have not the slightest hesitation in announcing that 
the law complained of is not in conflict with the Constitution 
of the United States or of Maryland. There have been num- 
erous decisions in the country. 

‘‘Nature, experience and observation suggests the pro- 
priety and necessity of one day of rest and the day generally 
adopted is Sunday. 

‘‘The laws of this State have recognized Sunday as a day 
of rest from the time the State was formed, and statutes on 
the subject that were in force in colonial days are still in our 
code. This court has from time to time given expression to 
its views on the question in very clear and unequivocal 
terms. 

‘*Tt is undoubtedly true that rest from secular employment 
on Sunday has a tendency to foster and encourage the Chris- 
tian religion—of all sects and denominations that observe 
that day—as rest from work and ordinary occupation enables 
many to engage in public worship who probably were not 
otherwise to do so. But it would searcely be asked of a 
court, in what proposes to be a Christian land, to declare a 
law unconstitutional because it requires rest from bodily 
labor on Saturday (except work of necessity and charity), 
and thereby promotes the cause of Christianity. If the 
Christian religion is, incidentally or otherwise, benefited or 
fostered by having this day of rest, as it undoubtedly is, 


64 A SPIRIT OF TOLERATION 


there is all the more reason for the enforcement of laws 
that help to preserve it. Whilst courts have generally sus- 
tained Sunday laws or ‘‘civil regulations,’’ their decisions 
will have no less weight if they are shown to be in accordance 
with divine law as well as human. 

‘‘There are many most excellent citizens of this State who 
worship God on a day other than Sunday, and our Constitu- 
tion guarantees to them the right to do so, a right which no 
one can interfere with. The legislature of this State has 
not undertaken to prohibit work on the day observed by 
them, and hence they do not have in their religious work the 
advantage of having their Sabbath made a ‘day of rest’ by 
human law; but the legislature has not in any way interfered 
with their religious liberty, or with their worship of God 
in such manner as they think most acceptable to Him, as 
they have a right to do under the above provision in the 
Declaration of Rights.’’ 

In a much earlier ease, Kilgour vs. Wills, decided in De- 
cember, 1834 (reported in 6 Gill and Johnson, page 268), 
Judge Chambers, of our Court of Appeals, said: 

‘‘The Sabbath is emphatically the day of rest, and the day 
of rest is the ‘Lord’s Day’ or Christian Sunday. Ours is a 
Christian country and a day set apart as the day of rest is 
the day consecrated by the resurrection of our Saviour and 
embraces the twenty-four hours’ rest ensuing the midnight of 
Saturday.’’ 

In Maryland, at each legislative session, an attempt is 
made to have a law passed requiring the King James version 
of the Bible to be read in the schools daily by the teachers. 
Owing to the influence of the Catholic and the Jewish mem- 
bers of the Assembly and a band of serious-minded, con- 
scientious men and women, who think further than the age 
in which they live, the bill has met defeat on each occasion. 
The Ku Klux Klan is now sponsoring the measure; whether 
it will ultimately make our Maryland public schools sectarian 
institutions only the future ean tell. 

The enmity of the Catholic Church to the measure is the 
result of the conflict between it and the Protestant Church 


A SPIRIT OF TOLERATION 65 


as to what book is the Holy Bible. The various Protestant 
sects of Christianity use the King James version, published 
in London, 18, 1611. The Catholics use the Douay version, 
of which the Old Testament was published by the English 
College at Douay, in France, in 1609, and the New Testament, 
by the English College at Rheims, in 1582. These two 
versions are called, respectively, the Protestant Bible and 
the Catholic Bible. 

Each denomination maintains that its own version is the 
most accurate presentation of the inspired Word as delivered 
to mankind and contained in the original Seriptures. A 
study of both indicates numerous differences. The Catholics 
claim there are cases of willful perversion of the Seriptures 
in the King James translation; the Lord’s Prayer is 
differently presented in both places. The Douay version also 
contains six whole books and portions of other books which 
are not included in the King James version. The Catholic 
Church considers these as a part of the inspired Scriptures, 
and therefore entitled to the same reverence and respect as 
the other portions of the Bible, while the Protestants do not 
regard these books as a part of the Scriptures. 

The first amendment to our Federal Constitution prohibits 
Congress from making any law respecting an establishment 
of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That 
instrument contains no restriction in this respect upon the 
legislatures of the States, which are thus left free to enact 
such laws in respect to religion as they may deem proper, 
restricted only by the limitation of their respective State 
constitutions. 

Article 27 of our State Constitution (Declaration of 
Rights) contains this provision: 

‘‘That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in 
such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons 
are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty ; 
wherefore, no person ought, by any law to be molested in his 
person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion or 
profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the 
eolor of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or 


66 A SPIRIT OF TOLERATION 


safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or 
injure others in their natural civic or religious rights; nor 
ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or 
contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any place of 
worship or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise 
competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on 
account of his religious beliefs, provided, he believes in the 
existence of a God, and that under His dispensation such 
person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be 
rewarded or punished therefor in this world or the world 
to come.’’ 

Under this provision of our law, the rights of the people 
of Maryland are defined in (a) matters of freedom of 
conscience, (b) freedom of civil status, (c) freedom of 
taxation for sectarian purposes. 

In some of the States, where the Protestants have been in 
the political ascendancy, the ‘‘Bible School Bill,’’ as it has 
come to be termed, has been enacted into law. And in- 
variably (with few exceptions) the State Supreme Courts, 
yielding to mob or erowd psychology and fearing the ery 
of judicial usurpation, have pronounced the law consti- 
tutional. An examination of the Constitutions of these 
States reveals a similarity to the provisions contained in our 
own. A careful analysis of the arguments and conclusions 
arrived at plainly shows a forced straining of the funda- 
mental law of the land and the respective State consti- 
tutions; in brief, they adjust the laws to their own narrow 
interpretations. Usually, high and lofty ground is assumed 
that ‘‘no book is so widely read and respected, or has so 
great an influence upon the lives and habits of mankind, and, 
all men whose judgments are of value, even those who deny 
its divine origin, admit it to be a great historical and 
literary storehouse and that its teachings are of the greatest 
value in the world.’’ 

In most of the adjudicated cases there have been dissenting 
opinions indicating that the doctrine of liberty of religious 
worship and the separation of Church and State have not 
been altogether destroyed. The majority of judges, however, 


A SPIRIT OF TOLERATION 67 


have declined to challenge a bigoted majority and have failed 
to keep aloft the torch of knowledge that was kindled by the 
fathers of the Republic. 

Thomas Jefferson regarded his religious liberty statute 
of 1785, providing that ‘‘No man shall be compelled to 
frequent or support any religious worship place or ministry 
whatsoever,’’ as one of his richest heritages to posterity. 
Small wonder was it that this man (who was such an 
inspiration to Thomas Kennedy) should cause this ac- 
complishment to be written on his epitaph as one of his 
achievements, others being the writing of the Declaration 
of Independence and the foundation of the University of 
Virginia. 

Maryland—as well as her sister States—needs a new birth 
of freedom. The torch which Kennedy, Tyson and McMahon 
have held so high is burning dimly in this decade. What 
man, filled with the divine spark of humanity and brother- 
hood, will God send to protect a sorely vexed minority whose 
rights are being threatened by narrow minds which can- 
not recognize eternal truths? Human institutions are in 
constant flux and every age cries out for a deliverer. 

‘‘Keep Church and State forever separate!’’ was the ring- 
ing ery of President Grant on September 29, 1875. He was 
addressing the Army of the Tennessee on that day, at Des 
Moines, Iowa, and sharply defined the rights of men and the 
duties of government. How timely today are his memorable 
words: 

‘‘The centennial year of our national existence,’’ he said, 
to his former soldiers, ‘‘is a proud time to begin the work of 
strengthening the foundations of the structure commenced 
by our patriotic forefathers 100 years ago at Lexington. 
Let us all labor to add all needful guarantees for the security 
of free thought, free speech, a free press, pure morals, 
unfettered in religious sentiments, and of equal rights and 
privileges to all men, irrespective of nationality, color or 
religion. Encourage free schools, and resolve that not one 
dollar appropriated for their support shall be appropriated 
to the support of any sectarian school. Resolve that neither 


68 A SPIRIT OF TOLERATION 


the State nor the nation, nor both combined, shall support 
any institution of learning other than those sufficient to 
afford every child growing up in the land an opportunity 
of a good common school education, unmixed with sectarian, 
pagan or ecclesiastical dogmas. Leave the matter of re- 
ligion to the family altar, the church and the private school, 
supported entirely by private contribution. Keep the 
ehurch and State forever separate. With these safeguards, 
I believe the battles which created the Army of the Tennes- 
see will not have been fought in vain.”’ 


CHAPTER VII 
DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


They were a briliant galaxy of men who fought to bring 
about religious freedom in Maryland. There were McMahon, 
Tyson, Breckenridge, and others, with Kennedy as a leader. 
To read the debates on the ‘‘Jew Bill’’ is to be spiritually 
inspired, to be mentally stimulated, in brief to sip at the 
fountain of Scripture. These men who fought prejudice 
and bigotry, engaged in a valiant struggle; they did not win 
with one blow; they persevered against desperate odds until 
reason and logic had found its way into the narrow, pro- 
vinecial minds of the legislators. These men were ahead 
of their times. They never desisted but battered away until 
victory was achieved. 

The speeches of these giants compare favorably with the ut- 
teraneces of the brilliant masters of government who drafted 
the Federal Constitution. Few debates in the halls of legis- 
lation surpassed them in eloquence of diction, power of 
analysis, and forceful delivery. Some of the speeches are 
veritable masterpieces. To permit them to be left in ob- 
scurity would be a grave injustice to the memories of these 
heroes. <A failure to gather them together from the dusty, 
moribund journals, gazettes and periodicals of those days, 
would be an irretrievable loss to mankind. Who knows but 
that their perusal and study some day by non-Jews may be 
the means of bringing forth new champions to espouse the 
eause of Israel? Just as Kennedy was inspired by. the 
views of Mirabeau on the subject of religious freedom during 
the French Revolution, and by Jefferson, Paine, and Adams 
during the American Revolution, so a great soul—yet unborn 
—may be stirred some day to great eloquence by his thoughts. 


The speeches of these men are valuable for their historical 
69 


70 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


and literary content as well as for their religious background. 
May the reading by both Jew and non-Jew of these inspired 
addresses lead to a clearer understanding of the country’s 
duty toward its subjects, and the obligations of the subjects 
toward their country. 

The debate opened in the House of Delegates on Wednes- 
day, December 9th, 1818, when Thomas Kennedy arose in his 
seat and moved that a committee of three be appointed to con- 
sider the justice and expediency of extending to those per- 
sons professing the Jewish religion, the same privileges that 
are enjoyed by Christians. The Speaker accepted the motion 
and promptly appointed Messrs. Thomas Kennedy, H. N. 
Brackenridge and E. 8. Thomas to be the said committee. 

The committee met following the session, and it was agreed 
that Mr. Kennedy should prepare a report upon the subject, 
which should be distributed among the members of the Leg- 
islature. On Monday, December 21st, Mr. Kennedy handed 
the report signed by the committee to J. W. Preston, Clerk 
of the House, who read it to the members. 


The committee appointed to consider the justice and ex- 
pedieney of extending to persons professing the Jewish re- 
ligion, the same privileges that are enjoyed by Christians, 
have taken the same into their serious consideration, and 
ask leave to report: 

That with respect to the justice of the case submitted 
to their consideration, your committee thinks there can be 
no question: in society, mankind have civil and political 
duties to perform, but with regard to religion, that it is 
question which rests, or ought to rest, between man and his 
Creator alone; there is no law can reach the heart—no human 
tribunal that has a right to take cognizance of this matter. 

But, taking this subject up in a religious point of view, 
your committee would appeal with confidence to the authority 
of the Christian religion itself, contained in the gospel, and 
the epistles, as a system that instead of persecution and 
proscription, breathes in every sentence and in every line, 
peace and good will to all mankind. 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 71 


Paul, the great apostle of the Gentiles, himself once a per- 
secutor of the Christians, after his miraculous conversion, 
thus expresses himself: ‘‘I could wish that myself were 
accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen accord- 
ing to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertaineth the 
adoption, and the glory, and the convenants, and the giving 
of the law, and the service of God, and the promises. Whose 
are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ 
came.’’ And what was the rule of his conduct? Instead 
of asking them to subscribe to his belief, he submitted to 
their rites and ceremonies, he submitted to the law of puri- 
fication, and even went so far as to circumcise Timotheus, 
who was afterwards ordained the first bishop of the Ephesians. 

That great man thought it his duty, in order to make con- 
verts to Christianity, to become, as it were, ‘‘all things to all 
men, that he might by all means save some.’’ ‘‘Unto the 
Jews (he says) I became as a Jew, that I might gain the 
Jews, to them that are under the law, as under the law, that 
I might gain them that are under the law.’” He knew human 
nature too well to use tests or qualifications, fire or faggots, 
to aid the holy cause in which he was engaged; he well knew 
that persecution may make men hypocrites, but never can 
make them true believers. He also declares, ‘‘cirecumcision 
is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but keeping the 
commandments of God.’’ And again, ‘‘God will render to 
every man according to his deeds (not according to his 
faith). Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man 
that doeth evil, of the Jew first and also of the Gentile, but 
glory, honour and peace to every man that worketh good, 
to the Jew first and also to the Gentile, for there is no respect 
of persons with God.’’ And again, ‘‘it is one God who shall 
justify the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcision 
through faith.’’ At another place, he puts this very im- 
portant question, ‘‘What advantage then hath the Jew? Or 
what profit is there of cireumcision?’’ To which he makes 
this remarkable reply: ‘‘Much every way, chiefly because 
that unto them were committed the oracles of God.’’ Indeed, 
all the writings of this illustrious apostle, particularly his 


72 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


epistle to the Romans, bear testimony that he professed the 
true spirit of Christianity, the true spirit of Christian charity, 
which ‘‘beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all 
things,’’ that charity which never faileth, that charity which 
he declares is far superior to faith and hope, that spirit, 
which another apostle (James) says is first pure, then peace- 
able, gentle and easy to be entreated, full of merey and good 
fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. And the 
same apostle (James) asks, ‘‘what doth it profit, my brethren, 
though a man say he hath faith, and have not works, can faith 
save him? Faith without works is dead. Yea, a man may 
say thou hast faith and I have works; shew. me thy faith 
without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my 
works, thou believest that there is one God, thou doest well, 
the devils also believe and tremble.’’ 

Your committee would also refer to another authority, an 
authority paramount to all others, and on which alone they 
would be willing to submit the question; they mean that of 
the divine author of Christianity itself. 

In that celebrated sermon delivered on the Mount, a 
sermon which takes rank of all others, and develops a system 
of divinity more to be valued than all other systems in the 
world; he tells us ‘‘think not that I am come to destroy the 
law or the prophets; I came not to destroy but to fulfil’: 
and again ‘‘Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, 
do good to them that hate you, and pray for them 
that despitefully use you and persecute you.’’ And he 
then adds the reason, ‘‘that ye may be the children 
of your Father who is in Heaven; for he maketh his sun 
to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on 
the just and on the unjust.’’ The Creator of all things acts 
impartially, and upon general rules and principles towards 
all his creatures; he makes no exceptions; whatever a man’s 
faith may be, or whether he is destitute of faith entirely he 
shares in common with the rest of mankind the blessings and 
comforts of this life. Again he tells us, ‘‘Judge not that 
ye be not judged.”’ 

There is still another and a stronger commandment, a 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 73 


commandment which if we are Christians indeed we ought 
to obey, for this is the great criterion laid down by Christ 
himself,’’ by this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, 
if ye keep my commandments.’’ The commandment to which 
your committee refers, has been universally known and dis- 
tinguished as the great rule of equity, the golden rule, 
‘‘therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should 
do to you, do ye even to them, for this is the law and the 
prophets. ’’ 

This plain and simple rule which he ‘‘who runs may read 
—who reads may understand,’’ embraces more in a few words 
than any other sentence that ever was recorded. Here is no 
room for sophistry, no cause for cavil, no doubt, no mystery, 
no exception: all is clear, convincing and conclusive. 

All things, all matters of faith or practice, all that regards 
our social and common intercourse, all that regards our 
duties, civil, political or religious, is here included, is here 
embraced. ‘‘ Whatsoever,’’ mark well the words, they cannot 
be too often repeated, they cannot be too often held up to our 
recollection, ‘‘Whatsoever you would that men should do 
to you, do ye even so to them.”’ 

And if we examine the history of the great founder of 
Christianity, from his cradle to his cross, we always find him 
expressing himself in the most kind, generous and lhberal 
manner, and always preferring the doers to the hearers of 
the word: ‘‘Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord, 
shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven, but he that doeth the 
will of my Father who is in Heaven. Not the empty 
professors of religion, not the mere subscribers to a belief in 
the truths of the gospel. 

But if we are Christians in deed and in truth, we must 
believe that the Jewish nation will again be restored to the 
favor and protection of God. The story of that wonderful 
people, from the days of Abraham unto the present time, is 
full of interest and instruction; their first emigration to 
Egypt; their leaving that country for the land of Canaan; 
their passage through the Red Sea; their journey in the 
wilderness; their settlement in Canaan; their captivity at 


74 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


Babylon; their restoration and final dispersion, afford a 
theme that never has been, never can be exhausted. They 
were once the peculiar people of God, they are yet a peculiar 
people; though scattered and dispersed in every country and 
in every clime, their future state will no doubt be more 
glorious than ever. And he who led their fathers through the 
deserts, has promised to lead them again to their native land. 
He who raised up and called Cyrus by name, can by the same 
power and with the same ease raise up a deliverer to His 
once favoured nation; and it is probable that the time is not 
far distant when this great event shall take place. Who 
that has ever contemplated the rise and progress of the 
Russian empire, and noticed the decline and fall of Turkey, 
but will agree that wondrous changes will ere long take place 
in that part of the world; and when the Crescent shall sub- 
mit to the Hagle, may we not hope that the banners of the 
children of Israel shall again be unfurled on the walls of 
Jerusalem, on the Holy Hill of Zion? : 

Your committee could refer you to many declarations in 
Moses and the Prophets that speak of the fall and restoration 
of the Jews. Moses says, ‘“The Lord shall scatter thee 
among all people from the one end of the earth even unto the 
other; so that all nations shall say, wherefore hath the Lord 
done thus.’’ And again speaking of their final restoration, 
he says, ‘‘if any of them be driven out into the remote parts 
of Heaven, from thence will the Lord thy God gather thee, 
and from thence will He fetch thee. And the Lord thy God 
will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and 
thou shalt possess it. For the Lord shall judge his people 
and repent himself for his servants, when he seeth their 
power is gone. The fountains of Jacob shall be upon a land 
of corn and wine, also his heavens shall drop down dew. 
Happy art thou, O Israel, who is like unto thee, O people 
saved by the Lord the shoulder of thy help, and who is the 
sword of thine excellency, blessed is he that blesseth thee, 
and cursed is he that curseth thee.”’ 

And the prophet Isaiah thus expresses himself, ‘‘I will 
restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 75 


beginning, afterwards thou shalt be called the city of right- 
eousness; the faithful city; for the Lord will have mercy on 
Jacob, and will yet choose Israel and set them in their own 
land.”’ 

Your committee could go on to multiply proofs upon 
proofs on this subject, until this report (long enough 
already) would be swelled into a volume; but let them rather 
refer you to the gospel and the epistles, to Moses and the 
Prophets, to the law and the testimony. 

It is indeed one of the strongest proofs of the truth of 
Christianity, that there is such a people as the Jews. Take 
away the Jewish nation, take away Moses and the Prophets, 
and what becomes of Christianity? You would in fact tear 
away some of the strongest foundations, destroy some of 
its most incontrovertible evidences. The Jewish and the 
Christian systems are nearly, very nearly, allied; are they not 
even a species of Christians? What does the Apostle Paul 
say on this point when talking of Moses? ‘‘He esteemed the 
reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasurers of 
Egypt.’’ The Jewish nation believes in Christ, in a Saviour, 
in a Messiah, yet to come; and the same Apostle also says: 
‘‘T would not brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this 
mystery, less you should be wise in your own conceit; that 
blindness in part is happened unto Israel, until the fullness 
of the Gentiles be come in, and so all Israel shall be saved, 
as it is written, there shall come out of Zion the deliverer, and 
shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.”’ 

It is in the interest and it ought to be the wish of every 
religious sect among us to see all political distinction forever 
abolished. Under the Constitution of the United States, the 
most perfect freedom is allowed in this respect, and it is 
surely inconsistent, it is surely strange, that a Jew who may 
hold a seat in Congress, who may even be raised to the highest 
and most honorable station in the universe, the chief 
magistrate of a free people, cannot hold any office of profit 
or trust under the Constitution of Maryland. 

In three-fourths, or more, of the other states, particularly 
in all those whose constitutions have been recently formed, 


76 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


free, unrestrained freedom of religious opinion is enjoyed; 
mankind are improving in the arts and sciences, the stock of 
knowledge is fast increasing. Shall we not also improve in 
the arts of government; and shall Maryland—shall that very 
state which was originally settled by Catholics, by those, who 
in their turn had been proscribed and prohibited from 
making settlements in Virginia, and whose first founder, Sir 
George Calvert, was almost even denied the right of hospi- 
tality in that now hospitable state, except he would take the 
oath of supremacy and of allegiance—shall Maryland, which 
ought to lead the van in the glorious cause of freedom, civil, 
political and religious, be the last to adopt a system which 
the other states in general, and which the United States have 
adopted ? 

Shall your committee be told, that however just it may be 
to abolish all distinctions among religious sects, yet that is 
inexpedient to make innovations on the Constitution of Mary- 
land? This is the language of prejudice. This savours ‘too 
much of that narrow doctrine so often used in other countries 
by those who are styled legitimate monarchs, and by their 
adherents. Our own government, from its very foundation, 
was an innovation; the Declaration of Independence was an 
innovation; the reformation of Luther was an innovation; 
and to use the language of the eloquent Gerald, who fell a 
vietim to tyranny, Christianity itself was an innovation. 

Maryland possesses numerous advantages over many other 
states. Blest with a fruitful soil; with numerous navigable 
streams; with a noble bay, the wonder and admiration of 
the world, with situations for sea ports in abundancee, it is 
therefore her interest to draw men of enterprise and of 
capital to her shores. The tide of emigration which is now 
flowing fast to the West, has already taken from Maryland 
many of her best and most industrious citizens, and although 
we need not hold out inducements to emigrants, we ought to 
let it be known that in Maryland, men enjoy civil and 
religious liberty, in as great a degree, as they do in any other 
state in the Union. 

Your committee, therefore, are unanimously of opinion, 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY fixe 


that it is just, that it is expedient, that Jews and Christians 
should be placed on an equal footing in regard to their civil 
rights and privileges. That the adoption of this measure is 
recommended by reason as well as by Scripture; stronger 
arguments are surely unnecessary. The mists of ignorance 
and of superstition are passing away at the approach of the 
sun of liberty; they are scarcely seen in other states; let them 
no longer cast a gloom over our beloved Maryland, let their 
baneful influence be felt no more; let them vanish forever. 

Your committee therefore, beg leave to report a bill, en- 
titled, ‘‘An act to extend to the sect of people professing the 
Jewish religion, the same rights and privileges that are en- 
joyed by Christians.’’ All which is respectfully submitted. 

By order, 
J. W. PRESTON, CLK. 


At the conclusion of the reading of the report Mr. Kennedy 
submitted the following bill, which was ordered to be read: 


AN ACT 


To extend to the sect of people professing the Jewish 
Religion, the same rights and privileges that are enjoyed 
by Christians. 


WHEREAS, it is the acknowledged right of all men to 
worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience. 
And whereas, it is declared by the 36th Section of the bill 
of rights of this state, “‘That the manner of administering an 
oath to any person ought to be such as those of the religious 
persuasion, profession, or denomination of which such 
person is one, generally esteem the most effectual confir- 
mation by the attestation of the divine Being. And whereas, 
religious tests for civil employment, though intended as a 
barrier against the depraved, frequently operate as a re- 
straint upon the conscientious; and as the Constitution of the 
United States requires no religious qualification for civil 
office, therefore, 


78 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


See. 1. Be it enacted, By the General Assembly of Mary- 
land, that no religious test, declaration or subscription of 
opinion as to religion, shall be required from any person of 
the sect called Jews, as a qualification to hold or exercise any 
office or employment of profit or trust in this state. 

See. 2. And be it enacted, That every oath to be ad- 
ministered to any person of the sect of people called Jews, 
shall be administered on the five books of Moses, agreeably 
to the religious education of that people, and not otherwise. 

See. 3. And be it enacted, That if this act shall be con- 
firmed by the General Assembly, after the next election of 
delegates, in the first session after such new election, as the 
constitution and form of government direct; that in such 
case this act and the alteration and amendments of the 
constitution and form of government therein contained, shall 
be taken and considered, and shall constitute and be valid 
as part of the said constitution and form of government, to 
all intents and purposes, any thing in the declaration of 
rights, constitution and form of government contained, to 
the contrary notwithstanding. 

See. 4. And be it enacted, That the several clauses and 
sections of the declaration of rights, constitution and form 
of government, and every part of any law of this state, 
contrary to the provisions of this act, so far as respects the 
sect of people aforesaid, shall be, and the same is hereby 
declared to be repealed and annulled on the confirmation 
hereof. 


The Bill was made the order of the day for January 13th, 
but was later postponed until January 20th, when the House 
proceeded to the second reading of the Bill. On a motion by 
Mr. Stephen the question was put, that the further consider- 
ation of the same be postponed until tomorrow. The motion 
was lost. 

On motion by Mr. C. Dorsey the following order was read: 

‘‘Whereas, the Bill entitled, An Act to extend to the sect 
of people professing the Jewish religion, the same rights and 
privileges that are enjoyed by Christians, is intended to 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 79 


abolish a principle in the Constitution of this State incorpo- 
rated in it as its first adoption. And whereas, it is consistent 
with the respect due to the opinions of the people thereof, 
that they should be advised of all propositions to modify or 
abolish any part of that instrument, so that their opinions 
and wishes may be learned by those to whom the power of 
legislation is delegated, before they shall be called upon to act 
thereon, therefore, Ordered, That the said Bill be referred 
to the consideration of the next General Assembly, and that 
the printer to the State be directed to publish the same, with 
the votes and proceedings of the present General Assembly.’’ 

Mr. Dorsey’s motion that the House assent to the same was 
determined in the negative. On motion by Mr. Wilson, the 
question was put, That the further consideration of the said 
Bill be referred to the next General Assembly. This motion, 
too, was defeated. 

The Bill was then read throughout and the question put 
by the Speaker: ‘‘Shall the Bill pass?’’ Mr. Kennedy, of 
Washington County, opened the debate with the following 
remarks: 


Mr. Speaker: 

It is with feelings of no ordinary kind, that I now rise to 
address this honourable house; the Bill which we are called 
to decide upon, is, in my estimation, the most important that 
has yet come before us; the most important that will come 
before us during the present session. 

And, if I am asked why I take so much interest in favour 
of the passage of this Bill—to this I would simply answer, 
because I consider it my DUTY todo so. There are no Jews 
in the county from whence I come, nor have I the slightest 
acquaintance with any Jew in the world. It was not at 
their request; it was not even known to any of them, that 
the subject would be brought forward at this time. 

And if there is any merit in bringing the case of these 
oppressed people before this house, that merit does not be- 
long to me; I wish not to enjoy honours that I do not de- 
serve, nor wear laurels that I have not earned. The subject 


80 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


was mentioned to me in Baltimore during the last session, 
not by a Jew, but by a Gentile gentleman. My situation 
was then like that of many of the people of Maryland—lI 
either did not know, was a subject indeed that had never 
until that time occupied a moment’s reflection in my mind; 
but the moment it was mentioned, I was convinced that such 
distinctions were wrong and that they ought to be abolished 
forever. 

It is well known to most of the members of this House 
that I am not a public speaker. Never before the last ses- 
sion of the Legislature did I ever venture to address a pub- 
lic assembly; yet although I know little of law and less of 
logic, and although J am master of no language but that 
which my mother taught me, on this occasion I am not afraid 
to meet any opponent, let his talents, learning and eloquence 
be what they may; and even if my frail vessel should meet 
with a storm, or suffer shipwreck on this voyage, I see many 
a friendly hand around me, who will not suffer the unskillful 
pilot to perish. 

There is only one opponent that I fear at this time, and 
that is PREJUDICE—our prejudices, Mr. Speaker, are dear 
to us, we all know and feel the force of our political preju- 
dices, but our religious prejudices are still more strong, 
still more dear; they cling to us through life, and scarcely 
leave us on the bed of death, and it is not the prejudice of 
a generation, of an age or of a century, that we have now to 
encounter. No, it is the prejudice which has passed from 
father to son, for almost eighteen hundred years. 

It will, I presume, be conceded on all hands, that if there 
was no such thing as revealed religion, it would be a matter 
of little moment what a man’s belief was; and that in select- 
ing a civil or a military officer, it would not then be neces- 
sary to inquire whether he believed in the sun, or the moon, 
or in the host of heaven, whether he worshipped the Deity 
in the form of an ox, or a serpent, a bird or a beast. If 
there was no such thing as revealed religion (I repeat) it 
would be a matter of little moment, what a man’s belief was. 

But, thank heaven, there is such a thing as revealed re- 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 81 


ligion; thank heaven, the path to life and immortality is 
made known to mankind by the glorious Gospel; is made 
known by the sacred volume (the Bible) I now hold in my 
hand, and to this sacred volume I appeal, and appeal with 
confidence; and I call upon any, or all the opponents of the 
present bill to point out a single sentence, or a single line, 
either in the Old or New Testament, that justifies a persecu- 
tion or proscription of men for their religious sentiments, 
or that furnishes any authority for requiring such a test or 
qualification on an appointment to a civil, military or political 
office, as that contained in the Constitution of Maryland. 
There is no such authority in Scripture. I challenge con- 
tradiction on this point—there is none. I repeat it again, 
and again, there is none. 

And if there is no foundation neither in reason nor in re- 
vealed religion, for requiring the test and qualification con- 
tained in the Constitution of Maryland, where shall we look 
for any authority to meet and support the ease? In preju- 
dice, in deep-rooted prejudice alone, can we find anything 
like the semblance of an excuse, for such provision, a 
prejudice that we ought to get rid of; provisions that it is 
high time to expunge from the Constitution. 

When the birth of Christ was first announced by the angel 
of the Lord to the shepherds, who were watching their flocks 
by night, on the plains of Bethlehem, and when the ‘‘glad 
tidings of great joy’’ were made known to them, we are told 
that ‘‘suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the 
heavenly host praising God and saying, Glory to God in the 
highest, and on earth peace, good will to men. ‘‘Good will 
to men!’’ To what men? To any particular nation or sect 
of men? No, good will to men—to all mankind, without re- 
gard to national distinctions, or sectarian denominations. 

And when Christ himself appeared upon earth, we find 
him in every scene, and upon occasion, inculeating principles 
of the purest benevolence; and, it is surely a strange cir- 
cumstance that Christianity, which is in itself a system, full 
of goodness, and boundless charity, should be made the ex- 
cuse for bigotry, and persecution; should be made a cover 


82 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


for narrowness of heart. These are the infirmities of human 
nature, and cannot in justice be ascribed to the Christian 
system. This spirit of intolerance showed itself among the 
first followers of Christ, for we are told that on a certain 
occasion when he was refused admittance into a Samaritan 
village, his disciples full of anger and revenge at the supposed 
insult, addressed Him in these words: ‘‘Lord, wilt thou 
that we command fire to come down from heaven and con- 
sume them, even as Elias did?’’ And what was His answer? » 
In language that must have smitten them to the heart, and 
no doubt accompanied with a look, which must have made 
them feel more than language could express, He ‘‘turned and 
rebuked them and said, ye know not what manner of spirit 
ye are of, for the Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s 
lives but to save them.’’ 

Sir, this narrow, persecuting spirit is not the spirit of 
Christianity, and Christianity has suffered much from the 
officious or misguided zeal of some who call themselves its 
friends, from the delusions of superstition and priest-craft, 
and (as a celebrated divine justly observes in a late publ- 
cation), from ‘‘that theology which struts in fancied demon- 
stration from a professor’s chair.’’ If people were to 
examine the doctrines of this sacred book more carefully 
themselves, we should have less occasion for interpreters and 
commentators; we should have less of bigoted zeal and in- 
tolerance, and more of that religion which in its purity, con- 
demns everything that savors of uncharitableness; and if we 
strictly attend to the rules laid down in this volume, we 
never can go far wrong. 

And what rewards did Christ promise to his faithful fol- 
lowers? Did He tell them that they should be raised to tem- 
poral dignities? That they should be chosen delegates and 
vovernors and judges? No, He told them directly the re- 
verse, and prepared them by his instructions and by His 
example for a life of suffering, a hfe of persecution and 
self-denial. He told them to ‘‘lay up their treasures in 
heaven,’’ to ‘‘seek first the kingdom of God and His right- 
eousness,’’ and He declared in a most emphatic manner, ‘‘ My 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 83 


kingdom is not of this world.’’ The rewards He promised to 
His disciples were of a far higher, nobler kind; they were, 
life and immortality beyond the grave, mansions of peace in 
His Father’s house, crowns of glory, fullness of joy and 
pleasures, the extent of which it hath not even entered into 
the mind of man to conceive. 

But even in this life the Christian is not without his en- 
joyments, without his reward. What is it that reconciles us 
to misfortune and distress, to bear unmoved the loss of friends 
and of fortune, of riches and honors—it is Christianity. 
The Christian enjoys that sweet peace of mind which the 
world can neither give nor take away; it is this which enables 
him to bear up against the pressure of every earthly diffi- 
eulty, every worldly sorrow; it is this which when his cheek 
touches his pillow at night teaches him to ask, and to ask 
with confidence, of his Father in Heaven to forgive his tres- 
passes, because he can add “‘I have no enemy on earth that 
I do not from my heart forgive.’’ This world is not his 
home; he looks for ‘‘another and a better world’’; his hopes 
and his affections are placed on things above; on those 
blessed abodes prepared for the good and the just of every 
nation, and of every age. 

It is a matter of astonishment that Christians who were so 
much persecuted themselves during the three first centuries 
after Christ, should in their turn have also become perse- 
eutors of those who differed from them in sentiment, even 
about matters not in themselves essential to salvation—the 
persecution against the Christians first commenced under the 
reign of that imperial monster, Nero, and was continued by 
Domitian, Adrian, Marcus Aurelius, Antonius, Diocletian and 
some other legitimates until the Emperor Constantine came 
into power and put a stop to those abominable outrages; but 
no sooner do we find Church and State united—no sooner do 
we find the temporal power and authority exercised in fa- 
vour of Christianity, than we find its original simplicity and 
purity corrupted by the cunning craft of wicked and am- 
bitious men who made a ‘‘gain of Godliness.’’ From the third 
to the seventeenth century, what horrid scenes does the 


84 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


history of Europe present; what a long list of bloody erimes, 
perpetrated in the name of Christianity, is upon record; 
erimes at which humanity shudders, crimes which almost 
surpass belief ; examine the records of England even at a late 
period of her history, particularly under the reign of the 
bloody Queen Mary. Look at the histories of France, of 
Germany, of Switzerland, of Spain, and her hellish Inquisi- 
tion, think of the murders, committed by the same accursed 
nation, in South America (murders for which she has suf- 
fered, and will suffer retribution) and say if you can help 
exclaiming, O, Christianity! (as was once said of liberty) O 
Christianity ! what crimes have been committed in thy sacred, 
thy peaceful name! Inhuman villains, unparalleled mon- 
sters, were ye the ambassadors of the meek and lowly Jesus; 
were ye the minister of Him, who when His last sad hour was 
come, could not only himself pardon His persecutors, but who 
even in the agonies of death could ery out with all the fervour 
of patriot love: ‘‘Father, Father, forgive them, for they 
know not what they do.’’ Were ye vicegerents of heaven? 
No, ye were the vicegerents of hell. 

I profess myself a Christian—I was baptized at the sacred 
font, and have been a partaker (however unworthily) at the 
communion table. ‘‘I am not ashamed of the gospel of 
Christ, for I count it (with St. Paul) the power of God unto 
salvation, to every one that believeth.’’ And yet I am free 
to declare that if Christianity cannot stand without the aid 
of persecution, without the aid of temporal power, let it 
fall; and let some other system more rational and more benev- 
olent take its place. But it cannot fall; it is founded upon 
a rock, and even the gates of hell shall never prevail against 
it; nor is there any system more rational or more benevolent; 
and all our puny efforts to support it by persecution are vain 
and worse than vain—they are worse than vain, because they 
are wicked, because they are unjust. 

Can that religion which was first promulgated by a few 
illiterate fishermen, and which has made such astonishing 
progress in the world, stand in need of the aid of temporal 
power to promote its interests and its growth? It has al- 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 85 


ready succeeded in a most wonderful and miraculous manner, 
and we may as well endeavor to overturn the everlasting hills 
of the Allegany, or to drain the waters of the Chesapeake 
Bay, as to attempt to arrest or stop its progress. It hitherto 
has triumphed, it will continue to triumph. 

And as a Christian I rejoice that there is such a nation as 
the Jews; I rejoice that the children of Israel yet exist as a 
peculiar people; to me it affords one of the strongest, most 
conclusive and incontrovertible proofs of the truth of Chris- 
tianity, and of the sacred Scriptures; and where wil! Chris- 
tians find, where will they look for an authority to justify 
their conduct in persecuting the ancient people of God? 
What is Christianity without them? What wouid be our 
condition had such a nation never existed? Christ himself, 
the Saviour of the world, was a Jew, was one of these 
persecuted and proscribed people. 

Grant that their follies and their crimes have been great 
and manifold; are we without our share of crime and folly? 
‘*He that is without sin let him cast the first stone,’’ was the 
language of Jesus himself; and are we, who are commanded 
to forgive our own enemies, to take up arms and avenge the 
insults offered to the omnipotent Jehovah? 


*‘Let not our weak, unknowing hands 
Presume thy bolts to throw, 
And deal damnation round the land 
On each we judge thy foe.”’ 
—Pope. 


Are we fallen and guilty wretches to become, and to be- 
come unasked, the asserters of the honour of the great I AM? 
Of Him who has in language loud and plain declared, 
‘“Vengeance is mine, I will repay.’’ 

The history of the Jewish nation is the most authentic, as 
well as the most ancient of any upon record, and it is at 
the same time the most instructive and interesting; it is a 
history well worthy the attention not only of the Christian, 
but also of the statesman and the philosopher; and whatever 


86 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


may be the fate of this Bill, I shall never regret on my own 
account that the subject has been brought before the Legisla- 
ture; for although the history of this people was familiar to 
me in the days of childhood and youth, [ have of late become 
better acquainted with it; it has occupied much of my time 
for some months past, and every day, and almost every hour 
some new and striking occurrence in their history is made 
known, some wonderful accomplishment of prophecy arrests 
my attention. 

If we look back to the days of Abraham, of Isaac and Jacob, 
we shall see the origin of the peculiar people. The writ- 
ings of Moses tell us that they were to be ‘‘a peculiar treas- 
ure unto God above all people, a kingdom of priests—an 
holy nation.’’ ‘‘Thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy 
God—the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special 
people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face 
of the earth. The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor 
choose you, because ye were more in number than any people 
(for ye were the fewest of all people), but because the Lord 
loved you.’’ ‘‘The Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love 
them, and he chose their seed after them even you, above 
all people, as it is this day; thy fathers went down into 
Egypt with three score and ten persons; and now the Lord 
thy God hath made thee as the stars of heaven for multitude.’’ 
‘“‘The Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto 
Himself above all the nations that are upon the face of the 
earth.’’ ‘‘The Lord hath avouched thee this day to be His 
peculiar people, as He hath promised thee, and that thou 
shouldst keep His commandments; and to make thee high 
above all nations which he had made, in praise and in name, 
and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto 
the Lord thy God as He hath spoken.’’ 

The good man of every nation and of every religion must 
feel something like a sigh of pity and regret rise in his 
breast when he contrasts the past, with the present condi- 
tion of this once highly favoured people; yet though we may 
weep and lament over their sad fate, we have this consola- 
tion, that to carry the mysterious plans of Providence into 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 87 


complete effect it was necessary—it was fore-known, that they 
should be scattered and dispersed. This event was foretold 
in ancient times, by many of the prophetic writers; we are 
told so far back as the days of Moses: ‘‘I will set my face 
against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies; they 
that hate you shall reign over you; and I will make your 
cities waste, and I will bring your sanctuaries into desolation, 
and I will bring the land into desolation, and your enemies 
which dwell therein shall be astonished at it; and I will 
seatter you among the heathen, and ye shall perish among 
the heathen, and they that are left of you shall pine away 
in their iniquity in their enemies’ lands.’’ ‘‘Thou shalt be- 
come an astonishment, a proverb, and a bye-word among all 
nations whither the Lord shall lead thee; and ye shall be left 
few in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for 
multitude—and the Lord shall seatter thee among all people 
from the one end of the earth even unto the other.’’ Their 
misfortunes are also described in a most impressive manner by 
many of the prophets: ‘‘Behold the Lord, the Lord of hosts 
doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah, the stay 
and the staff, the whole stay of bread and the whole stay 
of water. The mighty man, and the man of war, the judge 
and the prophet. Jerusalem is ruined and Judah is fallen, 
her gates shall lament and mourn, and she being desolate 
shall sit upon the ground.’’ ‘‘The land shall be utterly 
emptied and utterly spoiled.’’ ‘‘Thus hath the Lord said, 
the whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full 
end.’’ ‘‘Then will I cause to cease from the cities of Judah 
and from the streets of Jerusalem the voice of mirth and the 
voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice 
of the bride, for the land shall be desolate.’’ ‘‘Behold the 
eyes of the Lord God are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will 
destroy it from off the face of the earth, saving that I will 
not utterly destroy the house of Jacob saith the Lord.’’ 

On this part of the subject I could refer to numerous 
passages in the writings of the prophets, all treating the 
same language and pointing to the same event, but it is un- 
necessary; the destruction of Jerusalem, the dispersion of 


88 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


the children of Israel are events that it is well known have 
long ago taken place; and the almost literal fulfilment of 
these prophecies are strong, are irresistible evidences of the 
truth of the sacred writings. And what is remarkable, what 
must always be a source of consolation to the children of 
Israel in all their afflictions and distresses, and like the Balm 
of Gilead assuage their secret griefs is, that a restoration, a 
deliverance is promised and promised, too, in many instances 
even at the time when their destruction and dispersion, was 
threatened and foretold. 

I must here refer you to some remarkable prophecies that 
speak of the restoration of the children of Israel, in language 
clear and plain. In the 26th chapter of Leviticus which I 
have already quoted as a prophecy of their dispersion, at 
verses 42 and 44, after describing their misfortunes it is 
said, ‘‘Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and 
also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with 
Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land, 
and when they be in the land of their enemies I will not east 
them away, neither will I abhor them to destroy them ut- 
terly, and to break my covenant with them.’’ And in Deuter- 
onomy, chapter 30, verses 8, 4 and 5—‘‘Then the Lord thy 
God will turn thy captivity and have compassion upon thee, 
and will return and gather thee, from all the nations whither 
the Lord thy God hath scattered thee. If any of thine be 
driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will 
the Lord thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch 
thee. And the Lord thy God will bring thee unto the land 
which thy fathers possessed and thou shalt possess it; and 
he will do thee good and multiply thee above thy fathers.’’ 
And again, Deuteronomy, chapter 32, verse 36: ‘‘For the 
Lord shall judge his people and repent himself when he seeth 
that their power is gone, and there is none shut up or left.’’ 
The prophetic spirit of Moses, which darted into futurity and 
through the long vista of time, saw the various changes 
which were to befall his favorite people, must have been 
soothed with this sweet reflection, that although they were 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 89 


to undergo so many and such severe trials, they were finally 
to be restored to the favor and protection of the Lord God of 
Heaven and of earth. 

The prophet Isaiah, who is so often and so justly styled the 
Evangelical Prophet, and who is the most sublime writer, not 
only of the Old Testament, but of any writer, sacred or pro- 
fane, with which I am acquainted; he whose hallowed and 
inspired lips were touched with a live coal from the Altar, is 
also particularly full, clear, plain and explicit on this sub- 
ject, in numerous passages of his writings. He tells the 
children of Israel in the name of their God, ‘‘I will restore 
judges as at the first and thy counsellors as at the beginning, 
afterwards thou shalt be called the city of righteousness, the 
faithful city.’’ ‘‘The remnant shall return, even the rem- 
nant of Jacob unto the mighty God; for though thy people 
Israel be as the sand of the sea yet a remnant of them shall 
return.’’ ‘‘And it shall come to pass in that day that the 
Lord shall set his hand again the second time, to recover the 
remnant of his people which shall be left from Assyria and 
from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from 
Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the Is- 
lands of the sea; and he shall set up an ensign for the nations, 
and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together 
the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth; 
and the Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian 
sea; and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over 
the river, and shall smite it in the seven streams, and make 
men go over dry-shod. And there shall be an highway for 
the remnant of his people, which shall be left from Assyria, 
like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of 
the land of Egypt.’’ ‘‘For the Lord will have mercy on 
Jacob and will yet choose Israel and set them down in their 
own land.’’ ‘‘And it shall come to pass in that day that 
the Lord shall beat off from the channel of the river unto 
the stream of Egypt, and ye shall be gathered one by one, 
O! ye children of Israel. And it shall come to pass in that 
day, that the great trumpet shall be blown, and they shall 


90 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


come who were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and the 
outeasts in the land of Egypt, and shall worship the Lord in 
the holy mount at Jerusalem.’’ | 

‘‘And therefore will the Lord wait that he may be gracious 
unto you; and therefore will he be exalted that he may have 
merey upon you; for the Lord is a God of Judgment, blessed 
are all they that wait for him. For the people shall dwell 
in Zion at Jerusalem; thou shalt weep no more; he will be 
very gracious unto thee at the voice of thy ery; when he 
shall hear it he will answer thee. And though the Lord give 
you the bread of adversity and the water of affliction, yet 
shall not thy teachers be removed into a corner any more, but 
thine eyes shall see thy teachers.’’ ‘‘Thou Israel art my 
servant, Jacob whom JI have chosen, the seed of Abraham 
my friend, I have chosen thee and not cast thee away, 
fear thou not for I am with thee, be not dismayed for I am 
thy God.’’ ‘‘O Israel thou shalt not be forgotten of me, 
Jerusalem thou shalt be inhabited, the cities of Judah ye 
shall be built, and I will raise up the decayed places thereof.’’ 
‘Israel shall be saved with an everlasting salvation; ye shall 
not be ashamed nor confounded, world without end.’’ ‘‘The 
Lord shall comfort Zion; he will comfort all her waste places, 
and he will make her wilderness like Eden and her desert 
like the garden of the Lord.’’ ‘‘ Awake, awake, stand up, 
O Jerusalem which hast drunk at the hand of the Lord, the 
cup of his fury; thou has drunken the dregs of the cup of 
trembling and wrung them out. Therefore hear now this 
thou afflicted:—Thus saith thy Lord that pleadeth the cause 
of his people. Behold I have taken out of thine hand the 
cup of trembling, even the dregs of the cup of my fury; 
thou shalt no more drink it again; but I will put into the 
hand of them that afflict thee.’’ ‘‘For I will not contend for- 
ever, neither will I be always wroth; for the spirit should 
fail before me, and the soul which I have made I have seen 
his ways and will heal him; I will lead him also and restore 
comfort to him, and to his mourners.’’ ‘‘Thou shalt no more 
be termed forsaken, neither shall thy land any more be termed 
desolate.’’ ‘‘Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with 


—— 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY Ab 


her all ye that love her; rejoice for joy with her ye that 
mourn for her; for thus saith the Lord, I will extend peace to 
her like a river, and the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing 
stream; and when ye see this, your hearts shall rejoice, and 
your bones shall flourish like an herb; and I will set a 
sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them 
into the nations, to Tarshish, Pul and Lud, that draw the 
bow, to Tubal and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have 
not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they 
shall declare my glory among the Gentiles. And they shall 
bring all your brethren for an offering unto the Lord out of 
all nations, upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and 
upon mules, and upon swift beasts to my holy mountain Je- 
rusalem, saith the Lord—for as the new heavens and the 
new earth which I will make, shall remain before me saith 
the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.’’ 

The Prophet Jeremiah also talks of the restoration of the 
children of Israel, in very plain terms, ‘‘ Behold the days come 
saith the Lord, that it shall no more be said the Lord liveth 
that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of 
Egypt, but the Lord liveth that brought up the children of 
Israel from the land of the North, and from all the lands 
whither he had driven them; and I will bring them again 
into their own land that I gave unto their fathers, and they 
shall dwell in their own land.’’ ‘‘As clay is in the potter’s 
hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.’’ ‘‘I will 
be the God of all the families of Israel and they shall be my 
people. I will build thee and thou shalt be built, O virgin 
of Israel; thou shalt yet plant vines upon the mountains of 
Samaria; behold I will bring them (the remnant of Israel) 
from the North country, and gather them from the coasts 
of the earth, a great company shall return thither. He that 
scattered Israel will gather him.’’ 

‘‘And it shall come to pass, that like as I have watched 
over them to pluck up and to break down, and to throw 
down and to destroy, and to afflict; so will I watch over them, 
to build and to plant, saith the Lord. Thus saith the Lord 
which giveth the sun for a ight by day, and the ordinances 


92 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which 
divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; the Lord of 
Hosts is his name; if those ordinances depart before me, 
saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from 
being a nation before me forever. If Heaven above can be 
measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out 
beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that 
they have done saith the Lord.’’ Most emphatic—most en- 
couraging in these words—‘‘Thus saith the Lord, if my cove- 
nant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed 
the ordinances of heaven and earth—then will I cast away the 
seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take 
any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, of 
Isaac and Jacob; for I will cause their captivity to return 
saith the Lord.’’ ‘‘I will cause the captivity of Judah and 
the captivity of Israel to return, and I will build then as 
at the first.’’ ‘‘Fear not thou, O my servant Jacob, and be 
not dismayed O Israel; for behold I will save them from 
afar off and thy seed from the land of their captivity, and 
Jacob shall return, and be in rest, and at ease, and none 
shall make him afraid. Fear thou not, O Jacob, my servant 
saith the Lord, for I am with thee, for I will make a full 
end of all the nations whither I have driven thee, but I will 
not make a full end of thee, but correct thee in measure; 
yet will I not leave thee wholly unpunished.’’ 

The prophet Ezekiel also predicts the restoration of Israel. 
‘Therefore say—thus saith the Lord God, although I have 
scattered them among the countries, yet will I be to them as 
a little sanctuary in the countries where they shall come. I 
will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out 
of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will 
give you the land of Israel.’’ ‘‘I will bring you out from 
the people and will gather you out of the countries 
wherein ye are scattered with the mighty hand, and 
with a stretched-out arm, and with fury poured out. I 
will accept you with your sweet savour when I bring you 
out from the people and gather you out of the countries 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 93 


wherein ye have been scattered.’’ ‘‘I will bring them out 
from the people, and gather them from the countries and will 
bring them to their own land.’’ ‘‘I will take you from among 
the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will 
bring you into your own land; and ye shall dwell in the 
land that I gave to your fathers.’’ ‘‘Thus saith the Lord 
God; behold I will take the children of Israel from among the 
heathen whither they be gone, and will gather them on 
every side, and bring them into their own land; and I 
will make them one nation upon the mountains of Israel, 
and they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto 
Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt.’’ ‘‘Now 
will I bring again the captivity of Jacob, and have mercy 
upon the whole house of Israel, neither will I hide my face 
any more from them.’’ 

The prophets Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Micha, 
Zephaniah and Zachariah, all speak of this event—Zachariah, 
in particular, dwells largely upon the subject—‘‘Thus saith 
the Lord of Hosts; there shall yet old men, and old women 
dwell in the streets of Jerusalem, and the streets of the city 
shall be full of boys and girls playing in the streets thereof. 
Behold I will save my people from the east country and from 
the west country, and I will bring them and they shall dwell 
in the midst of Jerusalem. And it shall come to pass that 
as ye were a curse among the heathen, O house of Judah 
and house of Israel, so will I save you and ye shall be a bless- 
ing. Thus saith the Lord of Hosts it shall come to pass, that 
ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nation, 
even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, say- 
ing we will go with you; for we have heard that God is 
with you.’’ ‘‘I will have merey upon them, and they shall 
be as though I had not cast them off, I will hiss for them 
and gather them, for I have redeemed them; and I will sow 
them among the people, and they shall remember me, in far 
countries and they shall live with their: children and turn 
again; I will bring them again, also out of the land of Egypt, 
and gather them out of Assyria, and I will bring them into 


94 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


the land of Gilead and Lebanon.’’ ‘‘ Jerusalem shall be in- 
habited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem, the Lord 
also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory 
of the house of David, and the glory of the inhabitants 
of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah; 
in that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of 
Jerusalem, and he that is feeble among them shall be as 
David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel 
of the Lord before them, and it shall come to pass in that day 
that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against 
Jerusalem.’’ ‘‘And there shall be no more utter destruction, 
but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.”’ 

Mr. Speaker, I could refer to many more passages of the 
same kind were it at all necessary; for scarcely can the pro- 
phetic writings be opened, but we find the subject placed be- 
fore us in language that can neither be misunderstood nor 
perverted; and among the inspired writers under the Gospel 
dispensation, we find the restoration of the Jewish nation fre- 
quently spoken of—lI will only quote a few sentences from 
the New Testament on the subject. 

The Apostle Paul in his writings, particularly in the epistle 
to the Romans, always appears to have felt much interest in 
the fate of the children of Israel—‘‘Brethren my heart’s 
desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be 
saved.’’ ‘‘What then are we better than they? No, in no 
wise.’’ ‘‘For there is no difference between the Jew and the 
Greek; for the same Lord over all, is rich unto all that eall 
upon him.’’ ‘‘T say then, hath God cast away his people? 
God forbid—God hath not east away his people which he 
foreknew. ‘‘Through their fall, salvation is come unto the 
Gentiles; now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, 
and the diminishing of them, the riches of the Gentiles, how 
much more their fullness, for if the casting away of them, 
be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of 
them be—but life from the dead; for I would not, brethren, 
that ye should be ignorant of this mystery (lest ye should be 
wise in your own conceits), that blindness in part is happened 
to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in; and 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 95 


so—all Israel shall be saved, as it is written—there shall 
come out of Zion the deliverer—and shall turn away ungodli- 
ness from Jacob.’’ 

If we, therefore, Mr. Speaker, believe in the scriptures of 
the Old and New Testaments, we must believe that the 
children of Israel will again be restored to their own land; 
and their receiving, we are told, shall be like ‘‘life from the 
dead.’’ Their past misfortunes will ultimately tend to their 
advantage; from the past they will learn wisdom; from the 
circumstances of having been scattered and dispersed over 
the earth, they will gather a large stock of useful information 
from every country, from some of the knowledge of the arts 
and sciences, and from America they will carry the forms 
of republican government which will lead them to avoid in 
future the great evil of choosing a king, an error which was 
the cause of many of their troubles and sufferings. And if 
we are Christians indeed we ought to do all in our power to 
promote so desirable an object; and that great event may be 
nearer at hand than most of us are aware of; events almost as 
miraculous, and certainly much more unexpected, have taken 
place in our own days, and what consolation will it be in 
future, to think, that we aided in furthering the glorious 
work; for my own part I would rather have my name re- 
corded among the supporters of this bill, than to be raised 
to the highest office in the state. 

And surely this desirable event is not to be produced nor 
assisted by laws and statutes of proscription, and of perse- 
eution; let us judge the Jews by ourselves; are we ready to 
yield our opinions, to sacrifice our sentiments upon any 
subject when compulsion is used? No, it renders us more 
obstinate in their defense; persecution has never yet made 
a single sincere convert, nor is it at all necessary to hold out 
lines, and offer bribes to induce men to become Christians, 
to tell them—‘‘Subscribe to our belief and you shall have 
office.’’ Christianity disclaims such assistance, Christianity 
needs it not. 

Nor can we, sir, as Christians, find fault with the Jewish 
system of morality for theirs is the foundation of our own, 


96 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


and is in strict unison and alliance with it. The laws 
delivered to the children of Israel by God Himself, are those 
which have been repeated to us as rule and guide. To love 
God, and love our neighbor is the sum and substance of the 
Moral law, and the doctrines of the Old Testament, are in 
strict accordance with those of the New. Hear how David 
deseribes the leading characteristics of a good man. ‘‘Lord, 
who shall dwell in thy tabernacle? or who shall rest upon 
thy holy hill? Even he that leadeth an uncorrupt life, and 
doth the thing which is right, and speaketh the truth from 
his heart; he that hath used no deceit in his tongue, nor done 
evil to his neighbor, and hath not slandered his neighbor, 
he that setteth not by himself but is lowly in his own eyes. 
Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? or who shall 
rise up in his holy place? Even he that hath clean hands 
and a pure heart—he shall receive the blessing from the 
Lord.’’ And Isaiah, in his grand poetical manner, breaks 
forth in a rapturous strain on the same subject: ‘‘Thus saith 
the high and lofty one that inhabiteth eternity, whose name 
is Holy—I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also 
that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of 
the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.’’ 
Can men whose religion is so pure in its principles, ever prove 
dangerous members of society and unfit to be trusted in civil 
matters? If we condemn them, we at the same time condemn 
ourselves. 

And is it not a remarkable fact, that Christians are in- 
debted to the Jews, for a very considerable portion of their 
religious exercise? You cannot, sir, go into any chureh with- 
out hearing their writings quoted, and very often the text 
from which a discourse is to be delivered to a Christian 
congregation is taken from a Jewish writer. And what, Mr. 
Speaker, would the public and private devotions of many 
Christians be were they debarred from the use of the oracles 
first delivered to the Jews, from the Psalms of the sweet 
singer of Israel, and from the sublime effusions of the 
prophets? No later than last Sunday when at church in this 
place, I was not a little surprised to find that out of fourteen 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 97 


select sentences with which the Morning Service commenced, 
no less than ten were taken from the Old Testament. And 
on examination it will be found that the Book of Common 
Prayer from first to last is full of the Jewish writings; 
stripped of them, it would indeed be a short manual; and yet 
we Christians, who kindle the flame of our devotion at their 
sacred fires, and who are so much indebted to them for 
spiritual things, refuse to let them have any share of our 
temporal things; so fond are we of the loaves and fishes our- 
selves, so greedy after the very garbage and offal of office, 
we cannot spare them the smallest crumb—the least morsel. 
Sir, this is not Christianity, and I blush to think that our 
religion should be made a cover for such manifest injustice, 
such strange inconsistencies, and absurdities, but I dare not 
enlarge on this part of the subject; I have no patience even 
to think on it, and we are all Christians, all at least 
RECORDED CHRISTIANS, I trust we shall prove ourselves 
so indeed, and in truth, and do as we would be done by. 
There are few Jews in the United States; in Maryland there 
are very few, but if there was only one—to that one, we 
ought to do justice. JI have already observed that I have no 
acquaintance with any of them, but I have good authority 
for saying, that those among us are worthy men, and good 
citizens; and during the late war, when Maryland was 
invaded, they were found in the ranks by the side of their 
Christian brethren fighting for those who have hitherto 
denied them the rights and privileges enjoyed by the veriest 
wretches. 

Their situation is far different in every other state in the 
Union—their situation is very different even under some of 
the despotic governments of Europe. We are told by a late 
writer speaking of the Jews in Moldavia that their state and 
condition in that portion of Poland furnishes matter for very 
curious remarks—there they have obtained their greatest and 
most permanent settlements, and enjoy privileges and 
immunities which they possess in no other region—they farm 
all the distilleries—the inns are all in their hands—they have 
the monopolies of peltry, the precious metals, diamonds, ete., 


98 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


and the principal share in the traffic of corn. Many of these 
richest families have been ennobled, the noble houses of 
Ossolenski, Majerski, and Ravinezinski, are all of Hebrew 
origin, the author adds—‘‘The enjoyment of liberty and civil 
rights seems to have produced a strong effect on the physical 
constitution and physiognomy of this singular race, bestow- 
ing a dignity and energy of character upon them, which we 
may in vain look for in those of other countries—the men 
clothed in front with silver agraffes—their heads covered 
with fur caps—their chestnut or auburn locks parted in 
front and falling gracefully on the shoulder in spiral curls, 
displays much manly beauty, nay, I have frequently contem- 
plated with astonishment many amongst them, whose placid, 
yet melancholy countenances recalled to my recollection the 
heads depicted by Raphael, Leonarda da Vinci, Carlo Dolee, 
and the earlier Italian painters which until I visited Poland, 
I had conceived to exist only amongst the ideal forms of art. 
More than once, an involuntary awe seized me, on contem- 
plating on the shoulders of an Hebrew villager, a head 
presenting those traits of physiognomy, which by a long 
association, I had always conjoined with the abstract ideal 
countenance of the Saviour of the world.’’ 

But the privileges enjoyed by the Jews in Moldavia and in 
our sister states, are denied in Maryland, because they will 
not subscribe to our belief. Is it not arrogance, and arro- 
cance not at all congenial with the spirit of Christianity for 
us to say, in fact that we Christians, and we only are all that 
is great and good, that we only can be trusted to fill publie 
offices. Even where Christianity is unknown, is unthought 
of, we find numerous instances of the most disinterested 
magnanimity and virtue. The God of nature has implanted 
in the human heart the noblest, finest feelings, which often 
leads the most ignorant to perform deeds of benevolence and 
charity: what is it that impels the weather beaten sailor, 
after the battle is over to plunge into the raging ocean and 
risk his own life to save that even of an enemy? What was 
it when the gallant Smith (one of the first settlers of 
Virginia) was taken prisoner by the Indians and doomed to 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 99 


die, that induced the amiable Pocahontas to intercede with 
her father, King Powhatan for the captive’s life; and when 
her tears and entreaties proved unavailing—when the fatal 
club was raised to murder him, what made her like a minister- 
ing angel rush in between Smith and his executioner—clasp 
him to her affectionate bosom, lay her head upon his and 
arrest the stroke of death? She had never heard the sound 
of the Gospel, but she possessed that godlike disposition 
which Christians ought to cherish, and her heroic mag- 
nanimity melted the soul of the savages and gave life and 
liberty to the captive. What was it, in our own days, and 
but a few months ago, on the southern frontier that caused 
Milly, the daughter of the prophet Francis, lke another 
Pocahontas, to save the life of Duncan M’Rimmen at the risk 
of her own? and when he, full of genuine gratitude, offered 
her his hand, the generous girl nobly refused it, saying she 
‘‘would have done the same for any other white man’’. It 
was not Christianity that caused her to act in this manner but 
it is the true spirit of Christianity to act nobly thus 
disinterestedly. 

A religious test can never be productive of any good effect, 
it may prevent the honest, and the conscious, from accepting 
an office, but the depraved, the ambitious man, will not be 
stopped by so feeble a barrier. Nor is there any earthly 
mode by which it can be ascertained what a man does believe, 
you have his own word for it, and that is all you ever can 
have; and if it is his wish or his interest to act the hypocrite, 
you have no means to detect him; but it would not be a 
difficult task to prove that instances have occurred in Mary- 
land, of men declaring and subscribing their belief in the 
Christian religion in which they at the same time did not 
believe. 

If any test is necessary under a republican government, 
such as ours is, it should be of a political rather than a 
religious nature; but if I was to proscribe any particular 
sect among us, aS men that ought not to hold civil offices, it 
would be the Society of Friends. Not that I count them or 
their principles dangerous, they are a peaceable people, and 


100 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


enjoy much of my respect, but as they refuse to perform 
military duty, they could not complain if civil offices were 
denied them. On search we have duties to perform to society 
as well as to our Creator; and what would have been the 
situation of this country during the revolutionary war, or 
during the late war, had the people of the United States been 
all Quakers? Independence would never have been achieved, 
you, Mr. Speaker, would not have filled that chair, I should 
not now have been here to address you. And on this point 
in my humble opinion Christ himself justifies military 
services; he tells us ‘‘ Render unto Caesar the things that are 
Caesar’s,’’ and military services are as necessary to support 
a government as taxes or tribute. Here, thank God, we have 
no Caesars; the people are the sovereigns and they are still 
more entitled to their ‘‘own things’’ than any Caesar. But 
let me not be misunderstood, I would not proscribe any sect, 
let their religion principles be what they might. 

It may be a matter of surprise to some persons that a 
religious test should have been inserted in the constitution of 
Maryland; but it ought to be remembered that the consti- 
tution was framed at an early period; it is the oldest I believe 
among state constitutions, and the dominion of prejudice 
still exists in some degree, and prejudices of this kind, as I 
observed before, are strong and powerful. In Europe thirty 
years ago, it was often said that the United States could not 
stand beeause they had no established church, and it was left 
to America to set the glorious example to the rest of the 
world and to prove beyond contradiction, that a nation and a 
government ean flourish, can prosper, without the aid of a 
church establishment; and that Christianity can and will 
succeed without the aid of temporal power, we ourselves are 
witnesses of the great progress of its principles in this 
country and in this state within the last ten or fifteen years. 

Perhaps I have, Mr. Speaker (young as I am), seen and 
felt more of the effects of religious prejudice than most of the 
members of this house. I once had a father who was a strict 
and undeviating Christian in his walk and conversation, and 
who would not have injured his neighbor for the wealth of 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 101 


the world; yet that father with all his piety, was so wedded 
to his Presbyterian opinions that he would rather have 
followed his twelve children to the grave, than seen one of 
them turn Roman Catholic; a hereditary hatred had sub- 
sisted for ages between those sects, and each of them too 
often used violent means in support of their doctrines. Cal- 
vin, the father of Presbyterianism, was instrumental in having 
the celebrated Michael Servetus put to death in Geneva, 
because he did not believe in the Holy Trinity, and even 
Luther, the great reformer, thought it lawful to banish those 
whom he ealled heretics. 

I never expect to be so good a man as my father, but having 
seen so many more Catholics than he, and having been 
intimate with many of them, and having found them as 
amiable in all respects as the professors of other doctrines— 
my prejudice against them, if ever I had any, is forever at 
an end. 

Were I to enlarge on the prejudices that yet exist in the 
world—prejudices that seem to be cherished even by those 
we call enlightened governments in Europe, it would be easy 
to shew their folly and absurdity. Look even at England 
herself, where only Episcopalians or those who choose for 
the sake of an office to profane the Sacrament of the Holy 
Supper, are admitted to hold offices. Look at miserable 
Ireland, the great stay and support of England, where nearly 
three-fourths of the people are proscribed, and refused an 
office except they will turn hypocrites and abjure the religion 
of their fathers. Prejudice reigns there with a vengeance— 
and covers itself with the holy cloak of religion, with the 
mantle of Christianity. 

But, sir, it is not many years since Catholics were pro- 
scribed even in this free country. In the state of New York 
a holy hatred of them was inculeated by Church and State, 
and one of their intolerant acts of assembly which con- 
tinued in force until our independence, will show the horror 
and detestation in which they were held. It runs in this 
language: ‘‘Every Jesuit Seminary, Priest, Missionary or 
other Spiritual or Ecclesiastical person, made or ordained 


102 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


by any authority, power or jurisdiction, derived challenged 
or pretended from the Pope or See of Rome, or that shall 
profess himself, or otherwise appear to be such by practicing 
or teaching of others to say popish prayers, by celebrating of 
masses, granting of absolution, or using any other of the 
Romish ceremonies or rites of worship, by what name or 
title or degree soever, such person shall be called or known, 
who shall continue, abide or come into this province, or any 
port thereof after the first day of November, aforesaid, 
(1700) shall be deemed and accounted an incendiary, and 
disturber of the public peace and safety, and a disturber 
of the true Christian religion and shall be adjudged to suffer 
perpetual imprisonment. And if any person being so sen- 
tenced and actually imprisoned, shall break prison and make 
his escape and be afterwards retaken; he shall suffer such 
pains of Death, penalties and forfeitures as in cases of 
felony.’’ 

But to come nearer home, to come even to our own home 
—to Maryland, we find that this very state which we first 
settled under the auspices of Sir George Calvert, a Catholic 
nobleman, was also blessed with one of those falsely called 
‘true Christian acts.’’ For they were all alike the offspring 
of unjust, inveterate prejudice or persecution. Among the 
acts and orders of a General Assembly holden at Patuxent the 
20th of October, 1654, is an act entitled, ‘‘An act concerning 
Religion’’ whereby it was enacted and declared—‘‘ That none 
who professed and exercised the Popish (commonly called 
the Roman Catholic) religion could be protected in this 
province by the laws of England formerly established and 
yet unrepealed, nor by the government of the common- 
wealth of England, but to be restrained from the exercise 
thereof, ete.’’ And this was also extended even to Prelacy 
—or in other words to Episcopacy as well as to Popery; even 
the book of common prayer was forbidden to be used under 
pain of fine and imprisonment. 

But even at this day, we have some SLEEPING STAT- 
UTES in Maryland, under which many of our most respec- 
table citizens are liable to an ignominious punishment—nay 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 103 


even to death itself, if they honestly dare to avow their re- 
ligious opinions; I allude particularly to the act of 1723, 
chapter 16 and it is time, it is high time, that all such 
statutes should cease to exist, and it is surely the interest of 
every religious sect amongst us, to use their influence in sup- 
port of free and unrestrained toleration—what has been, may 
be, some dominant sect may come into power, who may think 
they do God service by offering human sacrifices, and it is 
our duty as legislators to guard against such a deplorable 
state of things by all the means within our delegated powers 
—we can do no better act for religion than to leave it free 
and unrestrained, for it is a stubborn fact, that no worldly 
power has any regret to restrain it—and we can do no better 
act for Christianity for it neither asks nor requires—nor 
authorizes civil governments to promote its cause. 

I mean to assert, and I call on gentlemen to contradict 
me, to put me right now if I am wrong, that MARYLAND 
is the only state in the UNION where Jews are excluded from 
all offices. J have examined the constitution of all the states 
on this point, with particular care and attention. In Mas- 
sachusetts, it is true (and the constitution of that state was 
also formed at an early period, and like that of Maryland 
during the storms and tempests of the revolutionary war) in 
Massachusetts it is required that ‘‘any person chosen governor, 
or lieutenant governor, counsellor, senator or representative, 
and accepting the trust, shall before he proceed to execute 
the duties of his office, take, make and subscribe the following 
declaration, viz: I, A. B. do declare that I believe the 
Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth.’’ 
Const. Massa. chap 6, art Ist and 2nd. But any other office, 
civil or military, may be held by a Jew—in Maryland, then, 
I repeat—and in Maryland alone—is a Jew excluded from 
office of every kind—and though compelled to pay taxes— 
though compelled to do military duty—and though he may 
distinguish himself by his talents, let his virtue, his merit 
be ever so great he cannot hold an office of any kind whatever. 

In all the other state constitutions there is no declaration 
or subscription or belief required, and in those of a recent 


104 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


date, religious liberty is particularly well guarded—even in 
Connecticut, that land of steady habits, the principles of 
free toleration is engrafted upon her constitution which was 
formed during the last year, and for this one noble act, I, 
for one, am willing to forgive Connecticut a multitude of po- 
litical sins. 

And, sir, when that illustrious man, whose picture graces 
our walls, and whose noblest act of a noble life was done 
under this roof—an act that will always render this house 
sacred in my estimation; I mean when he resigned his power 
into the hands of the people—when Washington and a band 
of worthies, composed of the most enlightened men that the 
American people could select, or could have selected, met to 
‘‘form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domes- 
tie tranquility—provide for the common defense—promote 
the general welfare, and secure the blessings of hberty to 
themselves and posterity’’—and when they did form a con- 
stitution under which this country has risen to greatness 
and glory, what test or qualification did they declare ought 
to be required from those who were to guide the destinies of 
a great and rising empire? Merit, and merit alone, was the 
qualification required, yet in the true spirit of republicanism 
the people were left to be the sole judges of that merit—and 
the only oath prescribed to the highest office, to him who was 
to fill the presidential chair, was simply this: ‘‘I do sol- 
emnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the 
office of President of the United States, and will to the best 
of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution 
of the United States.’’ He is not required to declare whether 
he is a Jew, or a Gentile, a Christian or an infidel; indeed, 
So particular in this respect were the great Washington and 
his compatriots in framing the constitution, that they en- 
grafted the following emphatic and important, and wise and 
liberal sentence at the close of that memorable instrument: 
‘‘No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification 
to any office or public trust under the United States.’’ We 
all profess a regard for the character and principles of 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 105 


Washington—let us then walk in his path, and follow his 
truly Christian example. 

Is it not strange, is it not absurd and ridiculous that a 
Jew should be denied every office under the State of Mary- 
land, and yet be eligible to all offices under the Constitution 
of the United States? With us he cannot be a constable— 
a justice of the peace—a practicing attorney or an ensign 
in the militia—with them he may be a judge of the Supreme 
Court, hold a seat in Congress, command the armies of the 
United States, or even fill the Presidential chair. Such 
strange inconsistencies ought to exist no longer. The bill 
before us does not go to exempt any but Jews from declaring 
and subseribing their belief in the Christian religion, and 
they believe in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and 
their God is our God. On this point, however, I must can- 
didly declare that were it left to me, I would abolish the 
religious test entirely without any exception, and am ready 
should it meet with the approbation of the House, to submit 
a motion to that effect, so as to make the bill general. 

Mr. Speaker, had I the tongue and the talents of a Cicero, 
or a Demosthenes or of him, the unrivalled orator of Mary- 
land, the illustrious Pinkney, who sails along the ocean of 
argument, in all the majesty of heaven-born eloquence, and 
who with equal ease and dignity, delights, astonishes, con- 
founds, convinces and bears down all opposition—I could 
talk to you on this subject until the sun went down, and rose 
again: he would soar when [I sink, he might succeed where I 
may fail. 

But perhaps it is well for the Jews that they have not 
such an advocate; you might in such a case distrust your 
sober senses, and fear that you were deceived, or imposed 
upon by his irresistible powers; it is well for the Jews that 
their cause needs not the aid of talents and eloquence; with 
truth and justice on their side we need not fear the result, 
nor do I fear it. That the bill will pass I have no doubt, 
but I do not wish to see it pass by a casting vote, or by a 
lean majority; for the honour of Maryland I wish to see it 


106 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


pass unanimously. JI wish to see the votes all recorded upon 
one side—affirmative, all; negative, none. 

Poor, hapless, unfortunate children of Israel, how are ye 
fallen; once the peculiar people of God, and enjoying His 
favour, His protection, and His immediate presence; blest 
with a land flowing with milk and honey, with a climate 
bland as the dews of heaven, and a soil luxuriantly fertile; 
now scattered and dispersed, oppressed and persecuted, with- 
out a country and without a home. Ye have drank deep of 
adversity’s bitter draught; ye have indeed emptied ‘‘the 
eup of trembling even unto the dregs’’—yet scattered and 
dispersed as ye have been; amidst all your distresses and 
unparalleled sufferings—ye have still been faithful and 
true to the religion of your forefathers; ye have still 
worshipped the God of Abraham; and ye have lived to see 
your destroyers destroyed. But fear not, ye sons of Jacob; 
faint not, ye children of Israel; though cast down, ye shall 
never be destroyed, persecuted, ye shall never be utterly 
forsaken; the hour of your deliverance approaches; the 
day of your redemption draweth nigh; and He who led 
your fathers through the wilderness, He who has hitherto 
preserved you as a nation—as a peculiar people—will ere 
long restore you to the promised land. 

But think not that I mean to supplicate your mercy, or to 
use the tone of pity in behalf of these oppressed people; no, 
Mr. Speaker, I would not accept the passage of the bill now 
on, your table as a boon or as a favour. I take higher and 
more independent ground. I demand it as an act of justice, 
sheer justice, and whatever may be the fate of the bill, it will 
always be a proud consolation to its friends, to think that 
there has been no intrigue, no out of doors influence, or 
management used in its behalf. And to the honour, to the 
‘praise of the Jews be it spoken, we have not seen them busy- 
ing themselves, crowding our lobby, or waiting on us at 
our chambers; they have acted with a noble delicacy on the 
occasion, and much as I have the passage of this bill at heart, 
much as I lament their fate, if they cannot succeed openly 
and honorably, I do not wish them to succeed at all. 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 107 


I trust there is no member of this House who will refuse 
to vote in favour of the bill for fear it might injure his 
own, or his party’s popularity; sir, that ephemeral popular- 
ity, gained by temporising conduct is not worth having; 
and if the political party to which I am attached, to which 
I always have been attached, cannot triumph without a 
sacrifice of principles, I pray God they never may triumph; 
but fears on this score are groundless, are only imaginary. 

Mr. Speaker, I will no longer trespass upon the time and 
patience of the members of this honourable House, and when 
I look around me and see so many countenances beaming with 
benevolence I cannot think for a moment that this bill will 
not pass, or that the children of Israel will be refused their 
just rights; and IJ call upon you, as men, who love to enjoy 
the free exercise of your own opinions to do them justice. [ 
call upon you as legislators to whose hands are committed 
the destinies of a free and generous people to do them justice. 
I eall upon you as Christians, to consider what you would ex- 
pect, what you would ask, were you now in their situation— 
and to do them justice, do them justice—I ask no more. 


Searcely had Mr. Kennedy taken his seat when Mr. 
Washington, of Montgomery county, obtained recognition 
from the Speaker, Col. James Brown, of Queen Anne’s 
county, and made a short speech in reply. He was followed 
by Mr. E. S. Thomas, of Baltimore county, who advocated 
the bill in a brief but forceful address. Then arose Judge 
H. M. Breckenridge, who proved a worthy second to Mr. 
Kennedy. A man of erudition, splendid culture and gracious 
charm, he stirred his audience by his eloquence and diction. 

Mr. Breckenridge represented the city of Baltimore. He 
was elected to the House of Delegates in 1818. The year 
before he had served as secretary to the Mission of the United 
States to Buenos Ayres. For several years he was United 
States Judge of West Florida. He was the author of ‘‘A 
Voyage to South America in the Frigate Congress.’’ He 
was finely equipped intellectually and with fitting eloquence 
and logic tore the arguments of his opponents to tatters. 


108 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


Mr. Breckenridge said: 
Could I, for a moment, suppose it possible for the bill on 


your table to weaken, in the slightest degree, the attachment 


we all profess for our holy religion, or could I bring myself 
to believe that even innocent and harmless prejudices are 
treated with insult by bringing it forward, I should not be 
among its advocates. But, sir, I feel a firm conviction that 
there is no room for any such apprehensions. The known 
private and public worth, as well as the firm and fixed 
religious principles of the gentleman with whom the bill 
originated, and who has supported it in a manner so becoming 
the American statesman and Christian, preclude the idea. 
He has successfully proved to my mind that there is nothing 
in the faith we profess, which enjoins it on us to hold to the 
principle engrafted in the constitution, although contrary to 
the progressive wisdom of the political world. To this test, 
I will endeavor to bring the question: I will endeavor to 
show that the constitution, as it stands, 1s entirely contrary to 
all sound and received political notions of the present day, 
as may be gathered, without the least danger of mistake, from 
the opinions publicly avowed, of all enlightened, not only of 
America, but throughout the world, as well as from the un- 
equivocal sanction of the highest and most respectable 
political bodies of this country. The subject, although of 
the most fruitful nature, properly resolves itself into three 
questions. Are the Jews entitled to be placed on a footing 
with other citizens? Is there any powerful reason of state 
policy, constraining us to make an exception unfavorable to 
them? Is there anything incompatible with the respect we 
owe to the Christian religion, in allowing them a partici- 
pation in civil offices or employments? 

To go back, sir, to first principles (and in examining 
institutions founded upon them we must often do so) it 
cannot be denied that we have duties to perform to our 
Creator, as well as to society, and unless the obligation attend- 
ing on these duties be clearly understood, we shall wander 
without end. It is unquestionably the right of society to 
compel everyone, who enjoys its protection, to conform to 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 109 


its ordinances and laws. It is its right so to constrain his 
actions as to conduce to the general happiness and prosperity. 
But after having exercised this control over his actions, the 
temporal power must stop; when it ventures beyond this, it 
opens the door to that oppression, persecution, and cruelty, 
of which the history of the world furnishes too many melan- 
choly examples. Opinion, when merely such, when urging 
to no act inconsistent with the laws and peace of society, 
should be encountered only by opinion; the interposition of 
the temporal arm, no matter how mildly interposed, is 
improper. For it is not the degree, or kind of compulsion, 
which renders it improper, but the interposing at all. 

If, as members of society, we have duties to perform, and 
which it is proper for the temporal arm to enforce; we have, 
as rational creatures, other duties of a much higher nature 
towards our Creator, of which he alone is the judge, and for 
the fulfilment or neglect of which, he can punish or reward. 
Religion, therefore, merely as such, is a matter entirely 
between man and his God. It must be left to each one, as 
he must stand or fall by his own merits or demerits, to enter- 
tain that belief, or offer that worship, he thinks most 
acceptable; or should his fellow endeavor to dissuade him 
from what he considers error let it be by appealing to his 
reason, not by resorting to coercion—a coercion that can 
only affect the outward actions, and prove the existence of 
greater temporal strength or power. He that is thus 
convinced will be of the same opinion still. The body may 
be bound in chains, it may be imprisoned and enslaved, it 
may yield to the assassin’s dagger, but the immortal mind is 
beyond his control. Upon this truth (and on no other can 
they safely rest) are built the rights of conscience, so little 
understood in most countries, not so well, I am sorry to say, 
in the State of Maryland as they ought to be, but perfectly 
so under the constitution of the Union; a constitution that 
has justly conferred upon our country ine character of the 
land of freedom and toleration. 

But it may be said, that no force, or coercion, is resorted to 
by the State of Maryland, to produce a conformity or belief; 


110 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


that each one is secure in his civil rights, no matter what may 
be his mode of faith; that no one can be molested on account 
of his religious opinion; that no one has a right to complain 
of being excluded from office, if he does not conform to the 
prevailing religious sentiments of the state. Sir, I contend, 
that in conformity to the reasons I have advanced, every 
citizen is entitled to all the privileges of citizenship; that the 
religious opinions of no one ean be justly visited upon him, 
either directly or indirectly, as the immediate effect or the 
consequence of that opinion. If in consequence of my 
religious belief, I am subjected to disqualifications, while in 
other respects on a perfectly equality with my fellow citizens; 
while there exists no reasons founded upon the well-being of 
society, to exclude me from these common benefits, I cannot 
but consider myself a persecuted man. 

The persecution is slight I own, but still it is persecution. 
It is not indeed the faggot, or the wheel, but it is applied 
for the same reason; it is because my opinions are not 
eonformable to those of the more numerous or more powerful. 
An odious exclusion from any of the benefits common to my 
fellow citizens is a persecution, less in degree, but of a nature 
equally unjustifiable as that whose instruments are chains 
and torture. In this country where all can aspire to offices 
of honor and emolument, to be excluded from them is by no 
means a negative punishment. I do not pretend to the merit 
of originality in expressing these sentiments. They are those 
of every American statesman; there is scarcely a distinguished 
man of our country who has not in some mode or other given 
them his approbation. They may be regarded as the received 
and established political doctrines of our country. They are 
inculeated in our youthful minds; they are considered as 
inseparably interwoven in the texture of our government; 
every American who aspires to the character of liberality in 
matters of opinion, and to a just knowledge of our insti- 
tutions, must subseribe to the proposition, that religion is a 
matter between man and his God; that the temporal arm 
should be interposed to direct the actions of men, and not 
their thoughts. I will take the liberty of reading some 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 111 


passages from different authors. of this country who have 
expressed these ideas in language much stronger than mine. 
(Here Mr. Breckenridge read several passages from Mr. 
Madison’s celebrated memoriai on the test laws of. Virginia 
and also from Judge Tucker’s notes on Blackstone.) I do 
not think I should venture too far in saying that a just 
criterion might be formed of the progress of anyone in those 
political principles, that may be considered peculiarly 
American by the willingness or unwillingness with which he 
yields assent to the reasoning of Mr. Madison on this subject. 
This report had, in its day, to encounter some enemies, it is 
true; it appeared at a moment when we were escaping from 
the political errors of our education; it was then the efforts 
of a bold spirit boldly declaring the truth to his countrymen. 
That truth has triumphed over bigotry and prejudice; it has 
planted its victorious standard on that noble monument, the 
Federal constitution—it has prevailed in every state, unless 
indeed its enemy, driven from every member of the con- 
federacy, should have found a last intrenchment in the 
constitution of Maryland; which God forbid. 

I have thus far considered rather what ought to be the 
right of the citizen, than what it really is, as guaranteed by 
the charter of his liberties. And here I do not hesitate to 
assert, that could this question be brought before some 
tribunal competent to decide, I would undertake to prove 
that the right which this bill professes to give is already 
secured by our great national compact. I would boldly 
contend that the state of Maryland has deprived, and still 
continues to deprive, American citizens of their just political 
rights. If we canot find it in the express letter of the instru- 
ment can we hesitate for a moment in declaring that it has 
at least virtually repealed every state law, or constitution, 
whose tendency is to infringe the rights of conscience? Look 
at the words of that section which relates to this subject. It 
may be said that this apples only to officers of the general 
government; but mark the consequences in practice. The 
man who cannot hold the most trifling office in the state of 
Maryland, may be chosen to preside over its destinies, as a 


112 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


member of the confederacy, he may command your armies, 
and lead you to battle against the enemy who dares to invade 
your shores; yet he cannot be an ensign or lieutenant of a 
company. He may sit upon the bench, and in the Federal 
courts be called to decide upon the fortune, or the life of the 
citizens of Maryland; yet he cannot be a justice of peace, to 
decide the most trifling controversy. He may be a juror in 
the circuit court of the United States, and be the arbiter of 
the fortunes and liberties of the first among you, and yet he 
cannot sit in the same box to deal out the measure of justice 
to the pilfering slave. He may be marshal of the district, 
and in that capacity entrusted with the most important 
concerns, at the same time that he is disqualified from per- 
forming the duties of a constable! Can it be possible that 
a discrepancy so monstrous between the general and state 
governments should not have been perceived, when every part 
of the system was so admirably attuned to move in unison 
and harmony? This clashing of general and state consti- 
tutions could not but have been foreseen. The history of the 
American colonies free as they were from intolerance, when 
compared to the dreadful persecutions which prevailed in 
HKurope, was unfortunately not entirely exempt from that 
cursed distemper which has done more injury to the cause 
of religion than its enemies ever could! Persecutions on 
account of religious opinions we must all know, with regret, 
are recorded in the histories of this country, which now 
assumes to itself the proud title of the asylum of the perse- 
euted. In some of these states it is well known that various 
denominations of the Christian religion were persecuted even 
unto death. It is true, the mists of error had begun to be 
dispelled by the glorious light of our revolution; the framers 
of constitutions at that epoch believed it wise and just that 
all sects and denominations of the Christian faith should be 
put upon a perfect equality, in their political rights. This 
appears to us, at this day, no great effort of liberality; every 
American who has been educated since that period, is satisfied 
in his judgment that the measure was wise. But are we 
certain that the enlightened framers of the constitution at 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY — PS 


that day had not prejudice to encounter—had no bigotry to 
contend with? The probability is they led the way to this 
salutary reform; and by the force of reason, and the weight 
of their character, triumphed over their opponents. But the 
reformers of abuse in society have generally been com- 
pelled to compromise with error. Their enlightened minds 
generally outrun the time and country in which they live. 
Something was left to be done by. themselves, or their 
successors, at a future period; that period arrived when the 
sages of our country were entrusted with the sublime and 
awful duty of framing, for this great nation, a general 
government, that would secure its peace, prosperity and 
happiness. An eulogium upon the men who composed that 
body, and the work of their hands, is unnecesary ; it is written 
in the heart of every American; and next to the gifts of 
divine Providence it constitutes the greatest blessing he 
enjoys. In this instrument, the finishing hand is put to the: 
work which is already nearly completed; force and opinion are 
finally separated—the union of Church and State, which had 
given birth to so many monsters, is dissolved forever. The 
citizen is declared responsible only for his actions; for his 
religion he is left to account to his God. Independently of 
the reasoning that guided them on this occasion, it is to be 
presumed, they had in view the evils experienced in our 
country from religious persecution, which previous to the 
Revolution, has not unfrequently disturbed the mutual peace 
and good will of different provinces. To put a stop, there- 
fore, to the recurrence of the like evils in future, it was in- 
tended to secure personal rights amongst the most precious 
of which are those of conscience, to every citizen in the Union. 
Every man who has read the Federal constitution must 
perceive that it is not merely the articles of confederation 
between independent states, but that it is a compact entered 
into by all the citizens of the state with each other, in their 
individual capacity. The constitution is therefore a pro- 
tection to all and each. The rights of conscience are un- 
alienable and imperceptible; in the nature of things it is 
utterly impossible to surrender them. The only office of the 


114 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


laws or constitution is to protect and save them from vio- 
lation. Is it in the power of the state government to en- 
eroach upon that which has been thus sacredly guarded? 
Sir, I do contend that the Constitution of the United States 
has guaranteed to every American citizen the right of 
worshipping God in the manner he deems most acceptable to 
him, and that this right is violated whenever the citizen is 
made to feel the consequences of his opinions, either by direct 
bodily inflictions or by disqualifications. 

But, sir, even admitting that the constitutional right is not 
clear, at least it must be acknowledged that the rejection of 
the test by the Constitution of the United States furnishes the 
strongest reasons why it should be expunged from that of 
Maryland. To obviate the contradiction between the general 
and state governments, every rational mind must admit that 
the bill ought to pass. Is there no respect due to the opinions 
of the enlightened statesmen who framed the Federal com- 
pact? I know, sir, to err is human, but if I must err, let it 
be with men like these. 

And let me ask, what is this test? What does it purpose 
to accomplish? It purposes to do what can be done by 
omniscience alone. It purposes to discover the inward 
thoughts of man; to lay open to view the workings of his 
mind. It purposes to discover who is the Christian, and who 
is not. I will appeal to any man of common experience to 
answer me candidly, whether he really expects in this mode 
to discover the true sentiments and opinions of anyone? 
The atheist, if there be such, and the Deist will laugh at this 
mode of detecting their errors—they will not hesitate to 
subscribe to what they consider an idle form. The Jew, and 
the Infidel, unless governed by an abstract love of truth, can 
be placed under no constraint by a test, which if they abuse, 
no earthly power can call them to account. Is it necessary 
to the Christian? Is he the better Christian for avowing his 
belief, before he can be allowed to possess some temporal 
benefit? No, sir, to him such a test is useless; to others it is 
worse than useless—it makes hypocrites; and I believe it 
requires no great stretch of casuistry to say, that the sin of 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 115 


this hypocrisy must in part be incurred by those who are the 
authors of the temptation. If anyone seriously fiatters him- 
self that the test can have a rational object, it must be as a 
mode of propagating the faith among these unbelievers, 
whose love of truth will not permit them to be guilty of 
deception. To these, it holds out the reward of office and 
dignities for their conversion; or denounces the punishment 
of partial degradation, in the common benefits of citizenship, 
while they persist in their unbelief. Can it be possible, sir, 
that in this enlightened age and country, we have not re- 
nounced the impious practice of propagating religion by the 
sword? Or ean it be regarded as anything else, when 
temporal rewards and punishments are resorted to as the 
means of establishing religious opinions? No one ean serl- 
ously contend that such was the object of the framers of 
-our Constitution. The very section on which our test is 
founded, proves to us that there was a struggle in the minds 
of those enlightened men, between their own opinions and 
the necessity of yielding to the prejudice of the day. They 
could not but have seen, that having once severed the union 
between Church and State, to require a religious test for 
political purposes, was worse than absurdity. Even English 
writers admit that, in England, the religious test is founded 
upon this union, and on nothing else. It was well known, 
that in England the struggle between Catholic and Protestant 
was a struggle for the government of the country; the test 
-was therefore, rather a mode of enlisting partisans in polities, 
than used for the purpose of ascertaining religious sentiments. 
_We have adopted it, as we have many other things from 
‘England, without sufficiently examining its application under 
a different order. I hope it will be renounced in the same 
manner that we have renounced many other errors, derived 
from the same source. Let us substitute the only real test 
-of the qualifications for public office; that of public and 
private worth, character or reputation. 
. »Let me not be understood, sir, as contending that there 
-may not exist sound reason and policy for withholding from 
‘eertain classes of citizens or people the rights or benefits of 


116 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


citizenship, in their utmost latitude. The existence of 
slavery amongst us has given rise to certain ideas and policies 
which I am not disposed to controvert. As to the naturalized 
citizen, there are reasons of state for not laying open to him 
the whole career of public offices, so fully sanctioned by our 
laws and received opinions, that it would be presumptuous 
in me to call them in question. But I have yet seen no reason 
of state, nor has any been suggested, why the naturalized Jew 
should not be placed upon the same footing with any other 
naturalized citizen; or why a native Jew should be east in 
a lower degree than even the naturalized foreigner of any 
country on the globe. Is it because there is something 
inherent in the race, which necessarily renders the Jew a 
less valuable citizen? Then, sir, we ought to form a 
eraduated seale for the different nations of Europe, and 
regulate the terms of their admission, and the extent of their 
privileges, according to the merits or demerits of their 
national character. We should in hke manner class our own 
citizens, and pay no regard to individual merit. To some we 
should give ten votes, to some five, to some one, and to others 
none at all! No, sir, such a discrimination is impracticable. 
The citizen of Jewish origin, whether naturalized or native, 
ought to be entitled to all the rights of citizenship that may 
be claimed, under like circumstances, by an Englishman, a 
Frenchman or a Spaniard. 

But, sir, is there really this inferiority in the Jewish race 
or character? The sacred book on which we ground our 
faith, teaches that they are not an inferior people. Else, 
wherefore should they be the chosen people of God, the 
favored depositories of the sacred law and holy prophecies? 
Do we forget that to them we are not only indebted for these, 
but even for the blessings of Christianity? Its author was a 
Jew, His apostles were Jews. On the contrary, there is every 
reason to believe that, as a race, they are the first among 
men. If a portion of this race were unwilling or unable to 
believe, we are told it was permitted by Providence for 
purposes greater than we can comprehend. That their 
descendants, eighteen hundred years afterwards should still 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 117 


persevere in the doctrines of their forefathers, we are taught 
to look upon as a miracle; but we are also taught, that the 
same people will believe at last, and be restored to divine 
favor. Their nature then has not changed, although they 
labor under the displeasure of our common Father. This 
displeasure has scattered them through the world and exposed 
them to the persecutions of the wicked. Persecutions, it is 
true which according to the natural tendency of things, has 
had, in many countries, a most unhappy influence on their 
character. Is it not natural, that when surrounded by bitter 
enemies—their remorseless oppressors and persecutors, that 
they should feel indignation and resentment? Can we expect 
them to show elevation of character, when a mark of 
opprobium is set upon them? Can we expect from them 
universal benevolence, when they are universally scorned? 
Can we expect to see them engaged in sober and industrious 
eallings, where they are forbidden to be owners of the soil, or 
to exercise the common mechanic arts? Can we expect 
them to love their Gentile neighbors when their name is used 
as a by-word—when those neighbors teach their children to 
scoff at their miseries? If the Jew be such as his enemies 
represent him, those enemies have made him so. That this 
should be, I own, is the will of Heaven; but when God afflicts 
His children, the instruments of His wrath are often His 
enemies also. 

Is there anything in the Jewish religious doctrines which 
disqualfy the Jew from discharging the duties and fulfilling 
all the obligations of a citizen of Maryland? Sir, I boldly 
assert that there is not. I should be the last to deny that a 
belief in a future state of rewards and punishments is the 
sheet anchor of all civil government. And has the Jew no 
religion to enforce the performance of his moral duties, by 
sanctions beyond the grave? Yes, sir, he has. He worships 
the same God that we do, the God of Abraham, Isaac and 
Jacob; the law which as especially given to him, we profess to 
obey; and exception that which was imprinted on the 
conscience by the Creator, for thousands of years, the world 
had no other. We are taught, as Christians, that the whole 


118 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


of the sacred book must stand or fall together; that the 
religion of the Jew is consequently a part of ours. We are 
told that the Author of our religion came not to govern the 
earth, but to unbar for us the gates of Heaven. Can the 
Jew, therefore, be said to have no religion which renders him 
accountable hereafter? He has. In his youth he is taught 
the same precepts for the government of life that we are. 
In his infancy he is taught to lisp the same prayer of universal 
morality and benevolence, that the Christian mother teaches 
to her child. He believes in the coming of a Messiah, with 
great power and glory, to judge the earth—this is our belief 
also. We shall, on that day, all be Christians. That the 
Jews will ultimately be converted is a part of our belief. 
Why, then, this intolerant, persecuting spirit towards the 
Jews? Is there any danger that there will be a want of 
persecutors? Is there any danger that in ceasing to be perse- 
euted, and therefore ceasing to be a peculiar people, they 
will no longer be the living miracle they now exhibit? Then 
the will of Heaven will have been fulfilled. 

Were it necessary for the support of this bill, I could 
undertake to vindicate the Jewish character from the impu- 
tations so commonly alleged against it. But the question is 
not whether they are good or bad; for if this be the criterion 
in the case of the Jews, there is no reason why we should not 
extend the same principle to other classes of society. I will 
ask those Christians who hear me, candidly and dis- 
passionately, to examine their own minds, and to say how 
much of their opinions, with respect to the Jews, is the off- 
spring of prejudice and education? Most of us have been 
taught, from earliest infancy, to entertain an unfavorable 
opinion of them. The books we read—the immortal Shake- 
speare himself has heen instrumental in fixing this un- 
Christian hatred to a portion of our fellow-men. A modern 
dramatist (I rejoice to say it for the honor of Christianity) 
ventured to be their advocate, and what is more, with success. 
We have seen, sir, that in the same country, in proportion as 
true Christianity, in proportion as science and ‘civilization 
have advanced, the condition of the Jew has been improved, 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 119 


while his character has uniformly risen to the level of that 
condition. Will anyone seriously compare the Jews of 
England, at the present day, with the same people a few 
centuries back, when they were degraded and oppressed by 
the kings of that country? Will they bear a comparison 
with the Jews of Portugal or Turkey? To come nearer home 
I will ask whether the American Jew is distinguished by 
those characteristics so invidiously assigned to him by his 
enemies? Sir, I have had the honor of being acquainted with 
a number of American Jews, and I have no hesitation in 
saying, that I have found the same proportion of estimable 
individuals as in any other class. None, sir, are more 
zealously attached to the interests and happiness of our 
common country; the more so, as it is the only one on earth 
they are permitted to call theirs. None have more gallantly 
and devotedly espoused its cause, both in the late and the 
Revolutionary war; none feel a livelier sense of gratitude and 
affection for the mild and liberal institutions of this country, 
which not only allows them publicly and freely the enjoy- 
ment and exercise of their religion, but also, with the 
exception of Maryland, has done away with all odious political 
and civil discriminations. In the city which I have the 
honour to represent, there are Jewish families who, in point 
of respectability and worth, are inferior to none; who are 
known only as differing from the Christian in their religious 
tenets; who are educated in the same schools with our youth, 
and like them, glory in being Americans and freemen. Have 
we had any cause thus far to repent of our liberality—rather 
of our justice? Sir, I abhor intolerance; and yet, I can 
scarcely regard tolerance as a virtue. What! Has weak 
and erring man a right to give permission to his fellow 
creatures to offer his adorations to the Supreme Being? Did 
I not feel myself somehow restrained from pursuing this 
subject, I could show that the idea of such permission, or 
toleration, is impiety! But I content myself with calling 
your attention to what has been the effects, in this country, 
of leaving religion to be taught from the pulpit, or instilled 
by early education. Is there less genuine religion in this 


120 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


country than in any other? For if the interference of 
sovernment be necessary to support it, such ought to be the 
natural consequence. Sir, I believe there is more. And I 
believe, that if the success of true religion were the only end 
in view, other nations would follow our example. I believe 
that in no country are there more atheists and Deists than in 
those where but one religion is permitted. All men are 
naturally inclined to be religious and provided they can find 
one which meets the approbation of their judgments, they will 
embrace it. The man who cannot subscribe to all the doctrines 
of Catholicism, may yet be a Protestant; the Protestant may 
be a churchman, the Presbyterian a Quaker or a Methodist. 
The inquisition allows him but one choice, and he must be 
either what is thus allowed, or nothing. It is no part of the 
duties of this legislature to guard and preserve the faith free 
from schism and innovation; otherwise, we have been 
extremely remiss in this important branch of our duties. I 
do not recollect a single act of assembly, passed for this 
purpose, since the establishment of the government, and I 
hope none ever will. The propagation of error has never 
been prevented by force, but force has sometimes given 
permanence to what would otherwise have been ephemeral. 

Were we about to attempt the conversion of the Jews to 
Christianity, the true mode would be to treat them with 
kindness, and to allow them a full participation in every- 
thing our country affords. When men are proscribed for 
their opinions, those opinions become dear to them; like the 
traveler in the storm they draw the mantle closer about them; 
but in the return of the warm and genial sun, they cast it 
carelessly away. Some reasons have been urged against the 
passage of this bill, whose force I must own myself unable to 
comprehend. Weare told that it will hold out inducement to 
the Jews to migrate to this country from abroad. Without 
stopping to inquire whether this would be an evil, I shall 
simply reply that this inducement already exists. If it ean 
seriously be supposed that the prospect of obtaining offices 
would invite the Jews to this country, has not this invitation 
been already given by the Constitution of the Union, as well 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 121 


as of the neighboring states? It has been objected on the 
other hand, that the number of Jews in this country is but 
small, that to alter the Constitution of these would be carry- 
ing liberality too far. Sir, I think very differently on this 
subject. If but one American citizen be deprived of his just 
rights, and it be in our power to redress them, it is our duty 
to do so, either by our own act, or by devising other suitable 
means. It has been repeated that there is no intolerance 
in withholding from the Jews the common privileges of 
citizenship. It is asked, are they not protected in the enjoy- 
ment of their religion? Are they not permitted to hold 
property, and to pursue the occupation most agreeable to 
them, excepting only the profession of the law? Are they 
not permitted to vote at elections and thus allowed a voice 
in the formation of the laws? I own, sir, that this is true, 
but why allow them even these privileges? Suppose them 
allowed but one less than they at present enjoy; for instance 
the right to vote, and that application were now made in 
their favor; would not the same arguments be urged against 
granting that request, that we have heard now, that an 
attempt is made to procure for them the enjoyment of every 
privilege? To go still further, suppose them on the same 
footing with the Jews of England, and an attempt were made 
to extend to them the rights of citizenship, would not the 
same arguments in opposition still be urged? Pursuing this 
train of thought where would it end? Sir, it would end in 
consigning the Jews to the dungeons of the Inquisition. The 
self same arguments that have been arrayed this day, against 
the passage of the bill on your table, have been heard from 
the lips of those who are engaged in preparing the racks, the 
chains, the fires, for the persecuted Jew. They are unworthy 
of an American, and ought to be abhorred by him, if for no 
other reason than that they are the constant theme of those 
who perpetrate the most horrid crimes in the name of 
Religion—of those ‘‘ Whose Banner is stolen from the altar of 
God, then whose forces are congregated from the abysses 
of HELL!”’ 

There is one thing that ought to teach us charity to all who 


132 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


worship God in a manner different from us; it is, that in 
countries under the government of the Inquisition those 
strangers who profess the Protestant religion are regarded 
in the same light as the Jews, they are even known by the 
same name and but for the fear of the governments to which 
they belong would be treated with the same cruelty and op- 
probrium. Ags far as epithets can show the extent of this 
bigotry and prejudice, the unfortunate heretics are in a sit- 
uation little better than the unfortunate Jews. This is not 
the spirit of Christianity. If man errs in his belief is there 
no judge? There is, and that Judge has emphatically de- 
clared to men, ‘‘ Judge not, lest ye be judged.’’ I wish to 
be distinctly understood as having no intention to express 
an unfavorable idea of any particular denomination. I speak 
only of the abuses committed in the name of Christianity, 
and those abuses have rarely failed to be practiced, when- 
ever there is an exclusive religion maintained by coercion of 
any kind. If we look abroad, we will find that the persecut- 
ing spirit is not the inseparable attendant of Catholicism, 
and the history of our own country proves that Protestants 
may sometimes be intolerant. 

It has been said, and I own I have heard it with some 
surprise, that the subject proposed to be remedied by the 
bill is of a nature purely abstract; that no serious cause of 
complaint exists. It is true, sir, that there has been no 
deputation from those people to solicit personally, or to make 
known their wishes with respect to this bill. Far from be- 
ing construed unfavorably for them, there is a delicacy in 
thus declining to weary you with importunities, which de- 
serves to be admired. But can anyone for a moment sup- 
pose that a native American citizen, whatever his religion 
may be, ean be insensible to the enjoyment of privileges, so 
highly prized by all his countrymen? Is it possible that he 
ean be insensible to the indignity of being placed in an in- 
ferior rank as to rights? No, sir, although the Jews are silent 
on this occasion, they are far from being insensible. They 
look to the decision of this House with the deepest interest, 
as one that will restore them to their political rank under the 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 123 


constitution, that they are so fully entitled to claim, by 
every reason of sound policy, as well as by the constitution of 
the Union. It is but a few days since I read an account, 
in one of the newspapers of Baltimore, of a public examin- 
ation at the principal seminary of learning in that place. 
To the son of a Jew, little more than 12 years of age, was 
awarded the first prize in every branch of education; and to 
crown all, he was declared to have surpassed his companions 
in good conduct and morality, as he had in superior endow- 
ments of mind! I own I feel a mortification when I reflect 
that the talents, learning and meritorious deportment of this 
youth can lead to none of the offices and honors of this 
State. That he cannot apply himself to the profession of 
the law, or aspire in the volunteer company in which he 
may have signalized his valor. Is it possible for this youth, 
or his parents, to feel no mortification at the existence of a 
distinction so invidious. Those who have been in the habit 
of praising the liberality of our institutions, will with diffi- 
culty believe this fact. The feeling I have for the honour 
of my country, for the character of this state, is a much 
more powerful motive with me in voting for the passage 
of this bill, than the mere desire of doing justice to the Jews. 
I would not have it said that we resorted, even in the slight- 
est degree, to power and coercion in matters of opinion, 
whether religious or political. No circumstance has tended 
so much to raise our character among enlightened men abroad, 
as our supposed exemption from this spirit of illiberality. 
By the adjoining states this praise is justly merited; and 
so inseparably did I suppose the principle connected with 
our political institutions, that when Maryland was first men- 
tioned to me as an exception, it excited my astonishment, for 
I believed the principle universal in our country. I hope for 
the honour of the United States and of the State of Maryland 
the bill on your table will pass. 

I defy anyone to produce the dictum, or opinion, of any 
American statesman, whose opinion is worth citing, in favor 
of a religious test for political purposes; or the example of 
any state which has withheld from American citizens of the 


124 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


Jewish religion all eligibility to office. In one of the states 
(Massachusetts) it is true there is a test; but even this, is 
only applicable to a few of the higher offices; and I believe 
there is no instance of a state having rejected a formal at- 
tempt to do it away. In every constitution formed since that 
of the United States, the test has been rejected; and by some 
it is even provided that none shall ever be required. Jews 
have been employed both under the state and general govern- 
ments, in offices of the highest trust and honor. In North 
Carolina, a memorable instance is on record of an attempt to 
expel Mr. Henry, a Jew, from the legislature of that state 
of which he was a member. The speech delivered by him 
on that occasion I hold in my hand, published in a collection 
ealled the ‘‘ American Orator’’; a book given to your children 
at school, and containing those principles of republican truth 
you wish to see earliest implanted in their minds. I will 
take the liberty of reading some passages from it. (Here 
Mr. Breckenridge read a part of the speech.) Mr. Henry 
prevailed, and it is a part of our education as Americans to 
love and cherish the sentiments uttered by him on that occa- 
sion. 

In the same book, we have at least ten speeches all upon 
this subject from the most celebrated orators of Great Brit- 
ain. The names of Chatham, Fox, Sheridan, Grattan and 
Erskine, are given to us as the champions of universal tolera- 
tion; as the advocates of the Catholic and the Dissenter, they 
speak with irresistible energy of truth; they teach us to 
detest the unnatural union of Church and State, and to abom- 
inate the interference of earthly power in matters of religion. 
Why put this book into the hands of your children, if it be 
not to instil into their minds the sentiments that American 
citizens ought to entertain? Where is the distinction be- 
tween the struggle of the Catholic and the Dissenter for 
the liberty of conscience in England, in which we all so 
sincerely sympathize, and the effort now made to procure the 
same thing in this state for the persecuted Jews? Is not the 
proscription the same in both instances? Do they not both 
claim the same right to offer their adorations to the Deity, 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 125 


free from the animadversions of government? The ease is 
the same—it cannot be distinguished. 

Some remarks have fallen from gentlemen that, in my 
mind, go further to prove the weakness of the opposition to 
the bill, than even the arguments that may be urged in its 
support. From what other cause could it be seriously as- 
serted that if this bill passes we may have infidels and Turks 
in office—we may have the processions of the Juggernaut 
crushing to death its wretched victims in the public high- 
ways! I will ask whether anything of the kind has yet 
taken place in any part of this country? Would not these 
acts be in violation of the laws, and the public peace and 
tranquillity? I have never contended that where opinions 
manifest themselves in acts detrimental to the peace of so- 
ciety that those acts ought not to be punished. But I say 
that as long as I keep my thoughts to myself, or their mani- 
festation neither violates the laws nor does any injury to my 
neighbor, no one has a right to molest me for them. This is 
a right I claim as an American citizen; and I proclaim it 
persecution when anyone forcibly interrupts the free enjoy- 
ment of my opinions, whether they be in matters of religion, 
polities or science; provided I so use them as neither to insult 
or injure my neighbors nor violate the laws of the land. 
Where the matter is a mere difference of opinion, I hold my 
right unquestionable to differ from any other man, or from 
all mankind, be the subject as it may. As to the Turk, or 
the infidel, I scarcely know how to reply, we never had more 
than two or three Turks in this country: I cannot be brought 
to believe that there is so much danger of the people elect- 
ing a Turk to the legislature as to require to be specially 
guarded against by the constitution. If by the term, infidel 
be meant such individuals amongst us as deny the sacred 
Seriptures altogether, I assert that no test can be effectual 
with respect to them, but a knowledge of their opinions, and 
habits of life, amongst their neighbors and acquaintance. 
The constitutional test places it in their power to acquit or 
condemn themselves at pleasure; there can therefore be no 
greater absurdity than to subject them to such a trial. Nay, 


126 DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


its effects would be worse; for suppose the case of one whose 
misfortune should be to disbelieve, yet under the influence of 
honour and truth, deprived from early education, a practical 
Christian unknown to himself, such a man would decline the 
test; and although I might not be disposed to dispute if any- 
one should deny this to be an evil, yet who will not agree 
with me in saying that it is an abomination, that the infidel, 
who has no regard to truth and honour, should be furnished 
with a mask of religion to wear in the prospect of gain? Ifa 
man swear falsely as a witness his falsehood can be proved 
by witnesses; but in this instance, what witness but Om- 
niscience can convict him? To the charge of having abused 
the test, he can allege that his belief has been taken since, 
or that he is now convinced. The test is therefore useless 
for temporal purposes. If by the term infidel be meant the 
unconverted aborigines of this country, or the East Indians 
and Chinese, I must reply again that the possibility of their 
being elected to any office in this country is too remote to 
require any constitutional provision. But, sir, this bill is 
not intended for the relief of infidels or Turks; it is intended 
specifically in behalf of the Jews; and I must confess that I 
labor under lamentable ignorance if I am wrong in thinking 
that the Jewish religion is not to be placed on a footing with 
that of the Turk, or idolator! It has been impressed upon 
my mind that the Jewish religion is divine, that we should 
believe in the books of the Old Testament as well as they, 
although we believe more than they do. We concur in the 
belief of what constitutes the base and foundation of 
Christianity; take away the foundation and where is the 
superstructure ? 

I am sensible that I have trespassed much on the patience 
of this house, on a subject in which the character of this 
state may appear more deeply involved than its interests; but 
I feel on that occasion as I would for myself; the character 
of justice and liberality is far dearer to me than the preser- 
vation of property; and I see no reason why a state ought 
not to be actuated by the same motive. 

There is one point of view in which the question has been 


DEBATES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 127 


put by the opponents of the bill, that I feel myself constrained 
to notice—though, I confess with reluctance. It has been 
stated that the passage of this bill is incompatible with the 
respect we owe to the Christian religion; that this is a 
Christian land—that the Christian religion ought to be 
legally avowed and acknowledged; that its support will be 
weakened by abolishing the test. Sir, I can see no disrespect 
offered to any system of religion, when the government 
simply declares that every man may enjoy his own, provided 
he discharges his social duties; and that its only foundation 
must be the zeal, affection and faith of those who profess it. 
I firmly believe that it is an insult to the Christian religion 
to suppose that it stands in need of the temporal arm for its 
support. It has flourished in despite of temporal power: by 
the interference of temporal power alone, in its behalf, has its 
progress ever been retarded or its principles perverted. 


CHAPTER VIII 
THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


On January 29th, 1820, Mr. Kennedy, of Washington 
county, asked leave to bring in a bill for the relief of the 
Jews in Maryland. The following is a sketch of the proceed- 
ings on the occasion, Mr. Kennedy said: I now rise to ask 
the leave of which I gave notice sometime ago, to bring in a 
bill for the relief of the persecuted children of Israel; and 
as I never wish to consume the time of this House un- 
necessarily and as the session is drawing near a close, I have 
to ask as a favour of the members of this House that they will 
decide the question upon the leave which I shall ask and if 
they are determined finally to vote against the bill, to vote 
mow against the leave—I have considered it my duty for 
many reasons to bring the subject before the Legislature, and 
to avow my determination whether in or out of power to 
advocate the cause of the Children of Israel—when the 
subject was brought before the House at the last session, it 
was done without their knowledge; nor have I consulted any 
of them on the occasion this session—no sir—for I must do 
them the justice to say that I sincerely believe had I con- 
sulted them they would have said—‘‘Do not agitate the 
subject—let us suffer a little longer, let us shew to the world 
that we can act with Christian forbearance—that being 
reviled we bless—being persecuted we suffer it.’’ 

I well know there was a clamour raised in some counties 
at the last fall election about the ‘‘ Jew Bill’’; I have been told 
that a very worthy and honourable gentleman (Mr. James 
A. D. Dalrymple) who was a member of this House last 
session, lost a great many votes, nay even lost his election 
in Calvert county, because he voted for the ‘‘Jew Bill’’—I 

-congratulate that gentleman on his defeat, it is an honour to 
him, and had I my choice I should prefer being left out of 
this House for having voted for it, than to be elected for 

128 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 129 


having voted against it; A firm adherence to principle even 
if it drives a man from office will ultimately redound to his 
honour ;—for 


‘‘More true joy Marcellus exil’d feels, 
Than Caesar with a Senate at his heels”’ 


I have been told of another member of this House who lost 
a number of votes because he had displeased some person in 
his vote on a Turnpike Law, and this person accused him 
with being a Jew—or for having voted for the ‘‘ Jew Bill’’ :-— 
And in my own ease it is but fair and candid to state that 
there was some clamour raised in Washington county on the 
same subject.—It is true there was no political opposition to 
the Republican ticket but there was a political interference, 
and political and personal hostility were covered under the 
name of the ‘‘Jew Bill.’’ 

We have for many years had violent political struggles in 
Maryland; we have seen the social harmony of the land 
disturbed by party discussions, and I regret to think that the 
long agony is not yet over, that another struggle is at hand 
to divide and distract us, for, if reports be true, the parties 
are already marshalling their hosts and preparing for action 
—TI regret it because I am confident that Maryland will never 
rise to that rank to which she is entitled among her sister 
States; so long as she is in such a situation we shall not see 
any great public work commenced, no liberal system of 
education adopted—no efficient militia law—-no provisions 
made to restore the exhausted state of the treasury, and I 
regret it also, because I fear it may operate to prolong the 
bondage of the peculiar people. And though Maryland has 
been my home for twenty-four years and probably will 
continue to be so, while I am not a native of this state her 
interests I wish to cherish,—and though this is not the home 
of my fathers, this is the home of those who are more dear to 
me—the home of my children—of the wife of my bosom. 

But, Sir, it is my sincere opinion, that the passage of a bill 
such as I shall propose will not injure the interests of either 
party in the State. And why? When the subject is brought 


130 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


before the people we can tell them and tell them truly, that 
we are but following the example of the illustrious Washing- 
ton who was among those who established the glorious precept 
that—‘‘No Religious test shall ever be required as a qualifi- 
cation to any office of public trust under the United States’’ 
—we can tell them that there is no religious test in other 
states, and we can refer them to the votes and proceedings 
of the Senate of Maryland at the last Session where some of 
the first characters in the State for talent, learning and 
integrity voted for leave to bring in a bill to abolish all 
religious tests in Maryland—TI have no fears of the people 
on this score—and low, low indeed must that party, or that 
man be sunk, who would urge. as an argument against a 
politician that he is not worthy of the public confidence, 
because he is willing to do unto others what he would wish 
they should do unto him. 

3ecause of the persecution of the Jews which during the 
last year has taken place in Europe I much regret that the 
Bill which was before us last Session, did not pass. Mary- 
land can employ a large capital to advantage and God knows 
we are now in need of all the capital we can procure—so that 
from an interested point of view it is highly expedient for us 
to show the Jews that in Maryland they shall at least receive 
as much protection as in other States.— 

I have, Mr. Speaker, met lately with a publication which 
appeared in London last October addressed to the Jews by 
Mr. W. D. Robinson, a citizen of the United States, on the 
subject of emigration and settlement to this country. He 
tells them: 

‘“The United States of North America where the field for 
enterprise 1S immense, is the only country on earth that 
affords to them the means of regeneration, and at the same 
time holds out to them security and comfort. The Consti- 
tution of the U. S. not only grants religious toleration on an 
immutable basis, but this is the only government among 
civilized nations that has wisely rejected any exclusive 
religious establishment, consequently every sect as well as 
every individual in that country whatever his denomination 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL Lot 


may be, is perfectly unmolested in the score of religion.’’ 

But, Mr. Speaker, will they come to Maryland? Will they 
come to the only state in the Union where they are pro- 
scribed? Will they come to that State where they are 
compelled to bear every burden in common with their fellow: 
citizens, and are deprived of the enjoyment of the meanest 
office? Will a Jew come to Maryland where he must muster 
in the Militia—where he must march out and risk his life in 
battle in defense of the state, and let him perform what 
gallant actions he may, let him be as bold and as brave and 
as victorious as a Jackson, he must remain a private forever. 
Let his legal knowledge, talents and character and integrity 
be what they may he cannot plead at the bar—plead at the 
bar, did I say—can he hold or exercise any office whatever? 
Will he come to Maryland when Pennsylvania and New York 
and Virginia and every other State is ready to receive him 
with open arms and to place him on a level with their Chris- 
tian brethren? Will he come to the only State in the Union 
where professions take rank of merit, where a mere declara- 
tion of belief by our laws is preferred, and held in higher 
estimation than virtue and integrity ? 

And as a Christian I consider the restriction contained in 
our Constitution as a stain on the Christian character. We 
have all professed our belief in that religion and the precept 
of our great Master. He tells us that the first and great 
command is to love our God with all our heart and soul, 
strength and mind, and that the second is like unto it—Thou 
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself’’—and in the parable 
of the good Samaritan He teaches us who is our neighbour, 
and to shew how little of religion avails he tells us that the 
-priest and the Levite passed by wounded suffering strangers 
without deigning even to stop—while the Samaritan stranger 
bound up his wounds and carried him to an inn. And when 
describing that sublime and awful scene which is to take 
place at the last day—He gives us the character of those who 
shall receive a welcome into the Kingdom of Heaven. ‘‘Come 
ye blessed of My Father inherit the Kingdom prepared for 
you from the foundation of the world for I was an hungered 


132 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


and ye gave me meat, I was thirsty and ye gave me drink, I 
was a stranger and ye took me in, naked and ye clothed me, 
I was sick and ye visited me, I was in prison and ye came 
unto me.”’ 

I am well aware, Mr. Speaker, that many members of this 
House even among my own political friends may consider me 
obstinate in my determination to bring this question again 
before the Legislature. Be it so; yet there is no member of 
this House who is more truly attached to the political party 
who now have the ascendency in the State, for since I knew 
politics I have always been strictly republican, and [| 
sincerely and conscientiously believe that on the precept of 
that party the happiness of the people in a great measure 
depends. 

But on a question like the present I shall always take my 
own course, and were it left to me to say shall this Bill pass, 
and lose the election next year, or reject it, and have the 
ascendeney next year, I would say pass it; for doing 
justice never can injure any party. Truth is powerful and 
shall finally prevail. 

I shall now, Mr. Speaker, read the Bill which I intend to 
introduce should the leave be granted—and have once more 
to ask the Members of the House to decide the question upon 
the leave which I shall ask. 

Mr. Washington (of Montgomery), ‘‘If the gentlemen from 
Washington will amend this leave so as to introduce a pro- 
vision for abolishing all religious tests the bill shall have 
my support.’’ 

Mr. Kennedy, ‘‘I certainly would concur with the gentle- 
man from ... Montgomery in abolishing all religious tests 
—but there is not any chance that such a Bill would pass 
the Senate, and_I think they would pass a bill like the 
present. ’’ 

Mr. Forrest, ‘‘I am opposed to the principle of the Bill 
for which leave has been asked, and as the member from 
Washington has expressed a wish that the question should be 
decided upon the leave I must vote against it. 

‘‘My friend from Washington, whose conduct I often have 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 133 


cause to approve, has made an appeal well calculated to rouse 
our pride as Marylanders, and to enlist our feelings on his 
side and I regret that on this occasion I must differ from him 
—nor can I agree with my colleague (Mr. Washington) that 
it would be right and proper to abolish the religious test 
entirely. As to electioneering on the subject we have had 
none of that in Montgomery. 

‘‘From the extract which the member from Washington 
read from Mr. Robinson’s pamphlet; which although I never 
have perused, I am the more convinced that the passage of 
such a Bill would be improper as it would tend to encourage 
the Jews to come and dwell among us.”’ 

Mr. LeCompte (of Dorchester), ‘‘I am also opposed to the 
Bill for which leave has been asked, upon principle—a 
principle which I avow—as I am proud of the name of 
Christian (although some people say I am a coarse Christian), 
but I do not think it proper or expedient to grant all the 
rights and privileges which we enjoy to a sect of people who 
do not associate with us and who do not eat at our table— 
I have never heard it used as an electioneering argument 
against any candidate—but I would consider it my duty to 
electioneer against any man who would vote for such a Bill.’”’ 

Mr. Kennedy replied that he had always considered the 
gentleman from Dorchester (Mr. LeCompte) in the general 
course of his conduct as a very liberal character, and was 
sorry that on this occasion he should have expressed himself 
in a contrary manner; that if the gentleman was to come to 
Washington county and electioneer against him, and even 
drive him from this house it would probably be doing him a 
service—that if he was to consult his own interests he ought 
not to be here at all, as he had a farm and distillery at home 
to attend to—and that he never had solicited a seat here; and 
that one of his chief objects in consenting to serve this session 
was that the subject of these suffering people might be again 
brought before the Legislature—and that he should rejoice 
rather than lament if his conduct on this occasion should 
drive him from office forever; that he believed the Jews 
to be as sociable and friendly disposed as other people; that 


134 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


he was acquainted with some Jewish ladies whom he had 
found as amicable in every respect as Christian girls; that 
on his way to the Legislature at New Year he had dined at 
the house of a worthy and respectable gentleman of that 
persuasion, and soon after entering the dining room he 
noticed a book on one of the side tables and on examination 
found it to be the Holy Bible—the Scriptures of the Old and 
New Testament, and it was many years since he had seen such 
a book in the dining room of a Christian—and that as to the 
evils to be dreaded from admitting Jews to a participation in 
our civil rights and privileges he considered them altogether 
ideal, that no evils had resulted from their free admission 
into New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and other states. 

Mr. William R. Stuart (of Queen Anne’s), ‘‘Mr. Speaker, 
I am in favour of the Bill and am surprised that the gentle- 
man from Dorchester should have said that he would 
electioneer against any man who was in favour of it. Were 
I to go to Dorchester to electioneer against that gentleman, 
I would not oppose him because he happened to differ with 
me in religious opinions.’’ 

The question was taken and when the Yeas and Nays were 
called, Mr. Jenifer (of Charles) observed that he had 
voted for the leave without considering himself pledged to 
vote for the Bill; that he had voted against a similar Bill 
last session, but his sentiments had undergone some change 
since that time. 

Mr. Ross (of Frederick) said he had not decided on the 
question as he intended leaving the House this day—but as 
it was now decided he asked permission of the House to vote, 
observing that in the last electioneering compaign in 
Frederick he had been represented by some as a Scotchman, 
and by others as a Pennsylvanian—and he was now willing 
to give his opponents the liberty of calling him a Jew. The 
House granted permission and he voted for the leave. 

The following is an extract from the Journals: 


House of Delegates, Jan. 29th, 1820. 
On motion by Mr. Kennedy, the question was put that 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 135 


leave be given to bring in a bill entitled ‘‘An Act for the 
relief of persons professing the Jewish Religion in this 
State.’’ 

The yeas and nays being required by Mr. Kennedy appear 
as follows: 


AFFIRMATIVE 


Messrs. Millard, Plater, Jenifer, A. H. Price, King, Wroth, 
Macky, Moffett, Patten, W. R. Stuart, Harrison, Ross, 
Hawkins, Montgomery, Breckenridge, Kellar, Kennedy, 
Gaither, Tomlinson, Blair—20. 


NEGATIVE 


Messrs. Speaker Key, Blackstone, J. F. Browne, EH. 
Browne, Spencer, Brooke, Mariott, T. W. Hall, Wyvill, Blake, 
Reynolds, Stone, Street, Dorsey, Garner, Stevens, N. Martin, 
Orrick, Showers, Dashield, Dennis, LeCompte, Lucas, 
Griffith, Jackson, Cross, Sommervile, R. T. Hall, Duvall, 
Boyle, Hollingsworth, Quinton, Warfield, Ijams, Maulsby, 
Norris, H. Hale, Forwood, Hardeastle, Willis, Whitely, 
Schnebly, Gabby, Washington, Forest, Wm. Price, Green- 
well—47. 


Because of a division of the Republican vote in Washing- 
ton county, Kennedy was defeated for re-election to the 
House of Delegates. Several measures in reference to 
religious freedom were jockeyed about both House and Senate. 
The absence of Kennedy seemed to have its effect upon the 
supporters of freedom. The following year Kennedy was 
elected by a substantial majority. At this session appeared 
a new figure who was destined to be a leader amongst men. 
He was John Van Lear McMahon and was but 22 years 
old when he took his seat. He became Kennedy’s strong 
supporter and it was upon his youthful shoulders, more than 
any other man, with the exception of Kennedy, that the 
responsibility for the eventual passage of the bill through 
the troubled waters at Annapolis fell. 


136 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


MeMahon was from his childhood supernormal He was 
born in Cumberland, on October 18th, 1800. His father, 
William McMahon, was a cultured Irish Presbyterian, promi- 
nent in his community both socially and politically. The 
boy was christened simply John. The name Van Lear he 
adopted in his early twenties as a compliment to his kinsman, 
John Van Lear, of Washington county. 

During his early school days, when he was a student at 
the Allegany County Academy, he astonished his instructors 
with his feats of memory and his brilliant scholarship. His 
memory was comparable only to Macaulay’s. On one oc- 
casion, when 14 years old, he repeated a sermon verbatim 
after hearing it once. 

In 1817 he went to Princeton. He was only 14 years old, 
but after a preliminary examination, he entered the sopho- 
more year. At college the fine promise which he had shown 
in his preliminary education did not diminish. He never 
played with his fellow students; amusements were not for 
him; while others danced, McMahon read. He graduated 
at the head of his class, and went back to Cumberland to 
study law in the office of Roger Perry, a leading member of 
the Maryland bar at that time. 

Imbued with the ambition which is the privilege of the 
young; lured on by unbroken success and long adoration to 
expectations of untroubled conquest, young McMahon came 
to Baltimore to practice law, after being admitted to the 
bar. Here he found an unpleasant disillusionment. In 
Cumberland he was a celebrity. In Baltimore he was one of 
the crowd. He stayed for two years in his ill-furnished office 
on St. Paul Street. His clients were few. His fiery language 
and his haughty manner brought him into disfavor with the 
Judges. In disgust, he went back to Cumberland. 

The law, he had found, was a hard mistress. He sought 
a new one, and studied medicine. There was in him, how- 
ever, too much spirit, too much fire, to brook the endless days 
in laboratories, so after a few months, he stopped. His only 
alternative was the ministry, and he tried that. But soon 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL ta 


his first love lured him back, and he took up the practice of 
law in Cumberland. His success was instantaneous. 

In a comparatively few months, McMahon was one of the 
leading members of the bar. His oratory, his logic, his 
sincerity, formed an invincible combination. In 1822 he 
went to the legislature. 

_ For a man who possessed the qualities of MeMahon, it did 

not take long to become one of the shining lights of a legis- 
lature which scintillated with genius—both forensic and 
logical. 

It was in 1823 that McMahon, already recognized, despite 
his youth, as one of the most powerful orators who 
ever raised his voice in the ancient State House, allied 
himself with Kennedy to secure the passage of the ‘‘Jew 
Bill? 

His most memorable speech on the question was his first 
one. Kennedy spoke first, and then the slender McMahon, 
with large black eyes and dark hair, arose to deliver his 
masterpiece. His introduction well illustrates the innate 
modesty of the man, while at the same time, indicates his 
genius. It starts in this manner: 

‘Gentlemen, if my esteemed friend, the gentleman who 
last addressed you, has had cause to tremble for his temerity 
in approaching a question at whose feet the stores of hoary- 
headed experience and the dictates of learning and wisdom 
have so often been laid in this house and elsewhere, how 
much more should I, upon whom these incumbrances hang 
doubly heavy, approach and present my little but heartfelt 
offering.’’ 

At the end of his second term, McMahon refused re-election 
to the legislature and moved to Baltimore. His fight was 
ended. He had won. The rest of his life was spent in 
tranquility, honored by his many friends, feared and 
respected by his few foes. He died when he was 71 years old, 
and was buried in Cumberland. 

On Tuesday, December 38rd, (House Journal Page 4), 
on motion of Mr. T. Kennedy, leave was given to bring in a 


138 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


bill, entitled ‘‘An Act to extend to the citizens of Maryland, 
the same civil rights and privileges that are enjoyed under 
the Constitution of the United States.’ 

The speaker appointed Kennedy, John L. Millard of St. 
Mary’s county and H. E. Wright of Queen Anne’s county 
a special committee to report the bill. 

On Wednesday, December 18th, Kennedy delivered the 
report. 

In the debate that followed, Kennedy and the boy orator, 
McMahon, delivered inspiring and invincible addresses. 

The members of the Senate, headed by Reverdy Johnson, 
marched into the House to listen to the debate, which was 
commenced by Mr. Lee of Montgomery county, who moved 
to strike out the first section of the bill. Kennedy spoke in 
opposition to the motion. He was supported by Mr. Pur- 
viance of Baltimore in a brief talk. The debate continued 
for several days and attracted people from all sections of the 
State. Those who took a prominent part in the debate were 
Wright of Queen Anne’s, Lockerman of Talbot, Allen of 
Harford, and Edelen of Charles county. 

Mr. Kennedy in his address said: 

Mr. Speaker: 

Now’s the day, and now’s the hour, and to me it is a 
most interesting hour, the most interesting hour of my life, 
for although I have often said that I was always prepared, 
always ready to meet the discussion of this important 
question, yet, now that the time has arrived, when we are 
called upon to decide it, I approach it with fear and trem- 
bling, and conscious of my inability to do it that justice 
which it merits, I am almost ready to shrink from the task. 
You know, sir, that I am not a public speaker, no orator, no 
logical reasoner, that I cannot even express my sentiments, 
except in a rough, rude, unpolished manner, and I have often 
to be indebted to your kindness for indulging me, even when 
not altogether in order, and if in the course of this debate 
any expressions should fall from me calculated to wound the 
feelings of any member of this House, he may rest assured 
that such is not my intention; if I talk freely of religion, and 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 139 


of the state of Maryland, it will not be from a want of 
sincere regard and respect. It is my wish to meet and 
discuss this subject as I do all others that come before us 
with fairness and with candour; and if I do not express 
myself as I ought to do. You will as on other occasions make 
proper allowances for me. 

Of the Christian religion which I profess to believe, it is 
far from my intention to speak irreverently. Of Maryland 
to whom I owe so much, and for whose character and prosper- 
ity I feel the most sincere regard, I never can speak lightly ; 
the best part of my life has been spent in Maryland and here 
it is probably my bones will rest at last, and I shall tell my 
children never to leave Maryland, for if | am not much mis- 
taken she is destined to be one of the most important states in 
the Union. It is because I wish to see religion flourish with- 
out the aid of persecution that I now advocate the bill which 
has just been read, it is because I love Maryland with all my 
heart and soul that I wish to see her pure, spotless and irre- 
proachable; the abode of hberty, and home of independence. 

The bill now before us has been playfully called more than 
once, a favorite baby, or bantling of mine, and although I 
do not claim the honour of being its first parent, in my eyes 
it does indeed appear a sweet, a lovely child, and ere it is a 
year old will become the darling and the pride of Maryland, 
who will press it to her bosom as her own; it will look up with 
laughing eyes to its grandpapa, the venerable member from 
Allegany, and smile on its old friends from Baltimore and 
Cecil, it will meet with a cordial reception on the Western, 
and a hospitable welcome in every county on the Eastern 
shore; it will grow up beloved by all, and when arrived at 
the years of maturity, when of an age able to leave its native 
home, its first visit will be paid to a spot that was once 
Maryland but is now Columbia, and there it will be seen 
sitting on the tomb, or scattering wild flowers around the 
grave of its first, its earliest friend—then tears will flow to 
the memory, and sighs will heave in sweet remembrance of 
one beloved and dear—in remembrance of him who was a 
Pinkney; for alas! there is no Pinkney now. 


140 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


We too, Mr. Speaker, may sigh and weep when we think 
‘There was a Pinkney.’’ He whom Maryland could proudly 
call her own, her matchless favorite son. To whom senates 
listened with admiration and that devout attention, which 
such commanding eloquence as his alone could inspire; he 
who on this floor almost thirty years ago appeared the bold 
and undaunted champion of civil and religious liberty—O! 
had that illustrious man when he left this world and winged 
his flight to the regions of bliss, let fall his mantle upon me 
for one short hour, I could then have placed this question 
before you in so luminous, so clear a point of view, and in 
so plain and persuasive a manner, that would have silenced 
all opposition and ensured complete success. 

But it is well, it is truly fortunate for me, that the cause 
I advocate is the cause of truth; I know it, I feel it to be so; 
and nothing but a consciousness of this kind could make me 
ready and willing, weak and unarmed as I am, to meet a 
host of adversaries, confident of success, for the justice of 
the cause must flash conviction on every unprejudiced mind, 
which meets the question fairly. 

This is a plain and simple question. For what do I 
contend? What are the provisions of the bill upon your 
table? Merely, that the citizens of Maryland shall be placed 
with regard to their civil rights and religious privileges on 
the same footing with the citizens of the adjoining states of 
Pennsylvania, Virginia and Delaware and indeed of every 
other state in the Union. This is all I ask, all that this bill 
provides for, and I assert with confidence and challenge 
contradiction on this point, that there is not another state in 
the Union that requires a religious test as a qualification for 
office—no, not one, except Maryland; this will scarcely be 
believed, but it is a positive fact, that cannot be denied. 
Neither under the Constitution of the United States, nor 
under the constitution of any other state except Maryland, 
are men proseribed for their religious opinions; that is a 
question left to be settled between themselves and their God. 
And is this such a boon, such a favor, such an act of Grace. 
I ask it not as a favor at your hands, but demand it as an 








THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 141 


act of justice, which as the enlightened legislators of a free 
people you are bound to grant. I claim it as a right recog- 
nized by the old Congress; and guaranteed to the citizens of 
Maryland by their own declaration of rights, by the Decla- 
ration of Independence, and by the Constitution of the United 
States, the supreme law of the land, nay, more, as one of those 
inalienable, and imprescriptible rights of man with which no 
human power or authority can justly interfere, one of those 
‘‘inherent rights’? which should always remain sacred, a 
right derived directly from him who made the heart; and in 
whose hands are the hearts of all men, and who can “‘turn 
them whither so ever he will.’’ 


Nay, so plain does this question appear to my mind, that it 
seems almost unnecessary to take up your time in arguing the 
subject, for I am well persuaded, that if it is fully under- 
stood, there will not, there cannot be any solid objection, to 
the bill on your table, either in this House, or among the 
people of Maryland. It is one of those subjects which bears 
the test of examination, and enquiry, and improves upon 
acquaintance; its friends are daily and hourly increasing, 
and public opinion is now decidedly in its favor; that is 
shewn in the re-election of those members who have formerly 
advocated the cause of civil and religious liberty on this floor, 
by the avowed change in the sentiments of many honourable 
men who are or have been members of this house; this is 
also unequivocally shewn in the sentiments promulgated 
' through the press for the honour of our country be it spoken, 
there is not a single newspaper in the land, that I have seen 
or heard of, whatever may be its political complexion that has 
come out in opposition to civil and religious liberty; on the 
contrary many of them have warmly and zealously espoused 
the cause. 

There is one circumstance which has increased the number 
of its friends, and that is, that the present bill is general in 
its provisions, and grants no peculiar privileges to any 
particular sect. It is no doubt fresh in the recollection of 
many members present that I have more than once brought 


142 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


before this house what has been generally called the ‘‘Jew 
Bill,’’ which went to exempt that peculiar people from the 
religious test, and IJ am now fully convinced that the present 
bill in every point of view is much more perfect, as it places 
every citizen of Maryland on the same footing without any 
regard to his religious opinions; its provisions are strictly 
in consonance with those of the Constitution of the United 
States, its principles have been sanctioned by the immortal 
Washington, and time and experience, have proved them to 
be salutary, and highly beneficial to our country. This 
therefore is not a Jew Bill, although that peculiar people will 
with all other sects be benefited by it, it is a Washington bill, 
a true American bill, and as such will, I am convinced, meet 
the approbation of this legislature. 

It is, I believe, generally admitted even by the opponents of 
the present bill, that if we were now about framing a new 
constitution, there would not be any religious test in- 
corporated in it, nay, that the question would be set at rest 
forever, by a declaration that no religious test should ever 
be required as a qualification for office, as is the law in the 
United States Constitution, and as was done in the consti- 
tution of Delaware in 1792, and in most of the state consti- 
tutions of a recent date. If then it is admitted that it would 
not be necessary to insert any provisions requiring a religious 
test in a new constitution, as impolitic and useless and 
contrary to the spirit of our free institutions, it is equally 
wrong and unnecessary to suffer the test to remain in our 
present constitution as it operates oppressively on some of 
our citizens, and I care not whether it deprives ten or ten 
thousand of their just rights, numbers cannot make a 
difference as to the principle, for if a single member of the 
body or the body politic suffer, the whole body suffers also; 
if one citizen is denied the enjoyment of his rights today, 
numbers may be tomorrow, for the same cause and the same 
reasons, until at last the whole community may be reduced to 
a state of abject slavery. 

It may be enquired why was a religious test originally in- 
corporated in the Constitution of Maryland? And the 


a 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 1438 


answer to the question will serve to convince us if we are 
open to conviction, that the present bill ought to pass. Our 
Constitution was framed in 1776, at an early period of the 
Revolution, and amidst the storms of war, when an angry 
foe was opposing us without, and when internal enemies 
were seeking our destruction in secret within; it was formed 
at the most important period of our eventful history, when 
all was commotion, and when the principles of civil and 
religious liberty were not so well understood, as in later 
times. The great object at that day was to unite the friends 
of liberty of every religious denomination, as I shall in- 
contestably prove to you, and the statesmen who framed that 
constitution, did much to ensure themselves a high place in 
their country’s memory—the Constitution they formed 
earried us through the Revolutionary War with honor and 
glory, and under it the state has enjoyed much peace and 
prosperity, but they well knew that the instrument was not 
perfect, and accordingly it contains a provision by which it 
ean be amended in a safe and simple way, and it has been so 
amended again and again, and the amendments have proved 
salutary and highly beneficial. 

I am fully justified in concluding that if the Constitution 
of Maryland had been framed at a later period it would 
not have contained any religious test, from the fact that 
when the Federal convention consisting of deputies from all 
the United States met in 1787, to form a constitution, they 
adopted the principle for which I contend in its fullest ex- 
tent, and what is remarkable although much difference of 
opinion existed on other matters on this subject there was 
not a dissenting voice, they were unanimous; as appears by 
the following extract from their proceedings. 

‘‘Journal of the proceedings of the Federal convention 
Aug. 30, 1787. It was moved and seconded to add the fol- 
lowing to the 20th article: ‘But no religious test shall ever 
be required as a qualification to any office under the United 
States,’ which passed unanimously in the affirmative.’’ 

This one single circumstance, this stubborn fact should, I 
think, put an end to the controversy and cause those who 


144 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


have hitherto hesitated as to the vote they should give us on 
this bill to ery out ‘‘We are not satisfied, let it pass.’’ Look 
at the names of those illustrious men who formed the consti- 
tution, composed as the bright record is, of Revolutionary 
heroes and statesmen, with Washington as their head; there 
too is a Franklin, a Livingston, a Hamilton, a Madison, a 
Dickinson and a Mifflin, and many others whom their coun- 
try have often delighted to honor; take them collectively, 
and you will scarcely find on the pages of history a more 
worthy assemblage, and if virtue of the purest kind, talents 
of the first order, wisdom the most enlightened, and patriotism 
the most noble, are wanting to sanction the principle for 
which I contend, here is that sanction to be found—here is 
an example worthy our imitation, here is a precedent to which 
we can point with pride and with pleasure; to err with such 
men would be pardonable, but to follow their example in so 
glorious and good a cause is an honor almost too distin- 
ouished; too exalted; and for us to pronounce at this time of 
day after an experience of thirty-five years has tested their 
principles, and stamped them with the seal of approbation, 
for us to pronounce them wrong, to despise their doctrines, 
to scorn their example, and to remain in the ranks of super- 
stition and prejudice in opposition to them, would appear to 
me, I confess, a sacrilegious act; it would be trampling on the 
Constitution of the United States, and we might with equal 
consistency abjure the principles of Seventy-six and the Dec- 
laration of Independence. 

But it was not in the Federal convention alone, that these 
doctrines were sanctioned; this was done universally, in every 
state convention that assembled to ratify the Constitution of 
the United States, even in Maryland there was no objection, 
and by the list which I shall now read to you of the members 
of our convention who ratified the United States Constitution 
you will find the names of members who formed the constitu- 
tion of Maryland and all of them men who have stood, and 
did then stand high in their country’s estimation. Here 
Mr. Kennedy read their names. Surely these facts ought 
to convince every person, that had the Constitution of Mary- 





THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 145 


land been framed at a late period, no religious test would 
ever have been required. 

I contend further that the faith, the solemn faith of Mary- 

land is pledged to grant civil and religious liberty to all her 
citizens. Maryland sent delegates to the old Congress in 
1774, and is bound to perform what they promised, and they 
did promise civil and religious liberty to all persons who 
would join their standard. Here are their own words. (Mr. 
Kennedy here read extracts from the Journal of Congress, 
vol. 1, p. 15, 101, 184, and vol. 2, p. 199, 292.) Were these 
pledges given to deceive, did Maryland join in the pious 
fraud? No! let it be whispered—and will she break her 
plighted faith, her Revolutionary pledge? No! she has too 
much honor, too much magnanimity for that. She can now 
redeem it. Ah! and she will redeem her pledge and fulfill 
her vows, made in the name of independence at the altar of 
liberty, as all the other states have done. 
‘ But to present this question in a plain point of view, and 
to show why a religious test was even in the days of the 
Revolution inserted in the constitution, it will be necessary 
to remove much ancient rubbish, and to go back to the first 
settlement of Maryland under the charter of King Charles 
the First; and upon enquiry we shall find that religious 
tyranny led in no inconsiderable degree to the settlement not 
only of this state, but also of the New England states; and 
whilst the Puritans were establishing themselves in the north, 
the Catholics were seeking an asylum in the south, and when 
we recollect that Episcopalians, Puritans, and Catholics were 
-so intolerant to each other in England, we cannot but admire 
the mysterious working of divine Providence which has 
ordained that this highly favored land should be the scene, 
where religious liberty was first to be displayed in all its 
heavenly purity, and that here the jarring elements of re- 
ligious controversy should mingle in peace. 

The Catholics and Puritans were intolerant to each other 
in England, and both were opposed to the Episcopalians, and 
these in their turn shewed but little of that spirit of 
Christianity which our holy religion so strongly inculeates. 


146 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


A few years before the settlement of Maryland, James I, 
in the second charter of Virginia, stated that the principal 
effect desired or expected by the act was the conversion and 
reduction of the people in those parts, unto the true worship 
of God, and Christian religion; and no person was to be 
permitted to pass, suspected to affect the superstitions of 
the Church of Rome, and none were to be permitted to pass 
in the said country but such as first had taken the oath 
of supremacy, which obliged the subject to acknowledge 
the king for supreme head of the Church of England, and this 
oath of supremacy was tendered to Lord Baltimore, on his 
visit to Virginia by the assembly of that province, but it was 
rejected by him, and the reception of that conscientious 
nobleman in the ‘‘ancient dominion’’ in the now far famed 
hospitable State of Virginia was more of a savage than a 
Christian character; it was worse than savage, and he there- 
fore soon bade them adieu, and sought for another shore, 
where though there was less of civilization, there was more of 
humanity; he sought and found our own dear and well 
beloved Maryland and there after his decease his son raised 
in St. Mary’s the great standard of civil and religious liberty, 
under which all nations shall one day assemble; he raised the 
banner of the cross, the ensign of that religion which breathes, 
in its every line, ‘‘peace on earth, good will to men’’; that 
religion which has so often been used as a cloak, to cover 
designs the most despotic and tyrannical. 

In the same year (1634), historians tell us that the 
Puritans of Massachusetts, led away by prejudice, could not 
bear even to look upon the emblem of the cross on which the 
saviour died; full of religious zeal, they tore the cross out 
of the colours under which they mustered, as being a relique 
of anti-Christian superstition. Here was fanaticism, and 
this too was called, this was believed to be Christianity; this 
was done by those who called themselves the disciples of the 
meek and lowly Jesus; the purest of the pure among his 
disciples. Thank heaven, the scene has changed in all the 
New England states; the reign of fanaticism is there at an 
end forever; even Massachusetts since the first agitation of 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 147 


this question in Maryland within the last two years, has torn 
to atoms the last relique of superstition and intolerance; and 
though the question of religious liberty was first agitated in 
Maryland, Massachusetts has nobly led the way by a total 
abolition of her religious test; and that state where civil 
liberty was rocked in its cradle, has now at the breast its twin 
sister religious liberty; at the breast? No! It is a weaned 
and a well-grown proper child; and are we to continue spell- 
bound in Maryland, are we to strangle our infant in the birth 
or stab her in the dark—are we to continue to be the mock 
and by-word of other states, the scorn of the world, and an 
example and an argument for religious tolerance to other 
nations ? 

The charter of Maryland, granted by King Charles, is 
much more liberal in its provisions than the second charter 
of Virginia, granted by the first James; and although it 
mentions the ‘‘pious zeal for extending the Christian 
religion,’’ yet it does not give a preference, nor does it pro- 
scribe any religious sect, and although it provides that no 
interpretation of the charter shall be made whereby God’s 
holy and true Christian religion shall in any wise suffer by 
change of prejudice; yet it does not say whether that ‘‘true 
religion’’ was Catholic, Puritanic, or Episcopalian. 

And it is due to the Catholics, the first founders of Mary- 
land, to state that a liberal spirit seemed to characterize their 
public acts in all cases of a religious nature; for although in 
1640, soon after the first settlement of the state, an act was 
passed which provided, ‘‘that the holy church within this 
‘province shall have and enjoy all her rights, liberties, and 
franchises, wholly and without blemish,’’ yet another act 
was passed in 1649, of the most liberal character; which not 
only declared ‘‘that the enforcing the conscience in matters 
of religion hath frequently fallen out to be of a dangerous 
consequence to those commonwealths where it hath been 
practised’’; but also provided for the punishment by fine, or 
whipping, and imprisonment, without bail, of any person who 
should in a reproachful manner call anyone by the name of 
Heretic, Schismatic, Idolator, Puritan, Independent, Presby- 


148 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


terian, Popish priest, &e &e or molest any persons believing in 
Jesus Christ, on account of their religion, or compel them to 
the belief of or exercise of any other religion, against his or 
their consent. 

Charles, from whom the charter of Maryland was obtained, 
was brought to the block by his own subjects, and Oliver 
Cromwell reigned in his stead, as Lord Protector; and now 
the Puritans were at the height of their power and religious 
persecution became the order of the day even in infant Mary- 
land, and we may here be surprised at the contrast between 
the liberal acts of the Catholic Calvert and the agents of the 
Puritanie Cromwell. 

In an assembly held at Patuxent in 1654, an act was passed 
entitled, ‘‘An act concerning religion,’” in which it was de- 
clared ‘‘That none who professed the Popish (commonly 
called the Roman Catholic) religion could be protected in 
this province, by the laws of England formerly established, 
and yet unrepealed, but to be restrained from the free 
exercise thereof,’’ &e. Other sects were to be protected in 
the exercise of their religion; but such liberty was not to be 
extended to Popery, or Prelacy, or in other words to 
Catholies nor Episcopalians, nor to such as under the pro- 
fession of Christ held forth and practiced licentiousness, that 
is, those who were opposed to the government of heaven’s 
vicegerent, my Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell. 

If these facts were not upon record, we might, Mr. Speaker, 
at this day, disbelieve them, but they are true; here they are 
staring us in the face. What! the founders of a colony, the 
owners of the soil, declared out of the protection of govern- 
ment, outlawed, exiled, lable to be insulted, robbed, 
murdered !—Nay, sometimes worse; for there are sufferings 
that to the softer sex are worse than death itself: and all 
this because they chose to worship God in their own way; 
and all this done by their own countrymen; by their brethren. 
Ah! and by fellow Christians too; and this all for the glory 
of God; for the promotion of the true Christian religion. 
Heavens! I confess when these days and these doings are 
brought to my remembrance, I lose all patience, and ean 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 149 


scarcely refrain from cursing the perpetrators of such crimes, 
and am sometimes almost warm enough to be illiberal towards 
those who are even to this day continuing this same system 
of persecution, by advocating a continuance of the religious 
test in Maryland. It humbles, it degrades, it makes me sad 
to think that we have still those among us, recorded Chris- 
tians too, who notwithstanding the lessons we have learned in 
the examples and experience of other states, are so devoid of 
Christian love and charity as to break the most sacred 
commands of the gospel; for next to God, we are commanded 
to love our neighbor as ourselves; and who is our neighbor ? 
If we read the story of the good Samaritan as told by our 
Saviour himself, we will not long remain ignorant; and may 
we not only read, but go and do likewise. 

After religious persecution had ceased in England there 
was also peace in Maryland, and in 1676, an act was passed 
rendering perpetual the liberal act of 1649 which I have 
already quoted; and this proves conclusively that when the 
Catholics of Maryland were in power, they shewed far more 
liberality in religious matters than either the Puritans or 
Episcopalians, and I am gratified in being able to pay this 
tribute to them with justice and with truth; and brought up 
as I was, a strict Presbyterian, and taught to hold, Catholics 
in abhorrence, it gives me much pleasure to say that the more 
I have seen and known of them, the more I esteem and regard, 
the better I love them. 

And for their liberality in Maryland, the Catholics were 
most generously and kindly repaid after the revolution of 
-1688, when William and Mary succeeded to the British throne 
following James II. At an assembly held at St. Mary’s in 
1692, an act was passed establishing the Church of England 
in Maryland entitled, ‘‘An act for the service of Almighty 
God, and the establishment of the Protestant religion in 
this province.’’ Among other things it was provided by 
this act that each taxable, should pay 40 lbs. of tobacco 
annually, for the use and benefit of the Minister; and 
every male resident above the age of 16 yrs. was accounted 
a taxable, also all female slaves and mulattoes, born of white 


150 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


women, and free negro women. This law was repealed by an 
act of assembly passed in 1696 but which his Majesty 
dissented from; and in 1702 an act was passed at Annapolis, 
entitled, ‘‘An act for the establishment of religious worship 
in the Province, according to the Church of England, and for 
the maintenance of Ministers.’’ This act continued in force 
until the Revolutionary War, and it also provided that all 
taxables should pay 40 lbs. of tobacco to the Minister of the 
Parish, and that protestant dissenters should be exempted 
from penalities, or forfeitures, on account of their dissenting. 
Laws were passed about the same time to prevent the growth 
of Popery, and in 1716, an act was passed entitled, ‘‘An act 
for the better security of the peace and safety of his Lord- 
ship’s government and the Protestant interest.’’—which 
effectually proscribed Catholics from office, and which may 
be considered as the origin of our religious test, for this is 
the first religious test which I ean find upon our records. 

Among the oaths of office required to be taken by this act, 
under a heavy penalty were the following: ‘“‘I, A. B., do 
swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure, as 
impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine and position, 
that Princes ex-communicated, or deprived by the Pope or 
any authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or 
murdered by their subjects, or by any other whatsoever. 
And I do further declare that no foreign Prince, Person, 
Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any juris- 
diction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, Ec- 
celesiastical or Spiritual, within the kingdom of Great Britain, 
or any of the dominions thereunto belonging. So help me 
God. 

I, A. B., do declare that I do believe that there is not any 
transubstantiation in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, 
or in the elements of bread and wine, at or after the conse- 
eration thereof by any person whatsoever.’’ 

And it was further enacted that if any person who had 
taken the said oath should afterwards be present at any 
Popish assembly, conventicle or meeting and join with them 
in their service of mass or receive the sacrament in that 





—< 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL Lil 


communion, he should forfeit his office and incur the penalty 
limited by the act, and be incapable of holding any office, 
until he should be reconciled to the Church of England, and 
receive the communion therein. 

Here was persecution with a vengeance, here was pro- 
scription in its most detestable form. The Holy Sacrament 
of the Supper, the most sacred ordinance of every Christian 
church was to be profaned, as it is at this day in England and 
Ireland, where men are compelled by law to ‘‘eat and drink 
damnation to themselves,’’ as a qualification for office; for no 
matter what is the character; no matter what is the religion, 
no matter how dissolute a life he may lead, the most 
abandoned reprobate, before he can execute the duties of his 
office must receive the communion according to the Church of 
England. | 

Nor was this all; there was more persecution in reserve. 
Catholics were to be disfranchised completely. An act was 
passed at the session of 1718, which after complaining of 
the increase of professed Papists, and apprehensive that 
their party would so increase in the province as well as in the 
city of Annapolis, provides, ‘‘that all professed Papists what- 
soever, be and are hereby declared incapable of giving their 
vote in any election of a delegate or delegates, unless they 
first qualify themselves by taking and subscribing the oath 
of abjuration and declaring,’’ which I have just read. Nay 
more, if they were even suspected to be Papists, Popishly 
inclined, these oaths and subscriptions were to be tendered to 
them, and upon refusal, their votes were to be set aside. And 
to prevent the increase of Papists, twenty shillings sterling 
was imposed as a duty on all Irish servants brought to Mary- 
land by land or water, this was afterwards repealed as to 
Protestants, but an additional duty of twenty shillings 
current money was’ imposed on Papists and to discover them, 
the oath of abjuration was to be administered, and when 
lands were taxed to raise supplies for public expenses those 
of Catholics were taxed double the sum paid by Protestants; 
nay, the very tenderest feelings of human nature were out- 
raged by an act passed in 1715, chap. 39, by which the 


152 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


children of a Catholic widow, or one who intermarried with 
a Catholic, could be torn from her arms, taken from her 
protection, and put under the guardian care of a Protestant, 
to be brought up in that religious faith. 

I cannot think of these things, Mr. Speaker, with any de- 
gree of patience, but I cannot let them pass without freely 
expressing my abhorrence and detestation of such abomin- 
able acts; they were acts disgraceful to Maryland, disgrace- 
ful to humanity, and most disgraceful to the Christian name 
and character; and yet these criminal acts, for I cannot call 
them by a softer name, were all perpetrated in the blessed 
name of Christianity, all for the support of the true religion. 

For almost three score years the Catholics were doomed 
to suffer a worse than Egyptian bondage, but their day of’ 
redemption came at last, and when the oppression and folly 
of the British government drove the people of this country 
into a revolution, no wonder the Catholics of Maryland were 
found foremost in the ranks, no wonder that they were all, 
or nearly all, Whigs, and a Catholic Tory was a rare 
character. 

And this was a favorable crisis for them to insist on a res- 
toration of their civil and religious privileges; they were a 
large and respectable portion of citizens, and they could use, 
with propriety, language such as this to their Protestant 
brethren: ‘‘The question of American independence is about 
to be settled; war is at hand, and our blood must flow, and 
our fortunes be spent in the cause of our country; we have 
with you felt the evils of tyranny and oppression, which the 
British government has so long and so unjustly inflicted; 
but we have felt those evils more severely, they have at- 
tempted to tyranize over our minds, and because we adhered 
to the religion of our fathers, they have disfranchised us, 
proscribed us from office, denied us the enjoyment of civil 
rights, and branded us as dangerous members of society. 
This state of things must not longer continue, we must no 
longer be punished for our religious opinions; we must no 
longer be proscribed from office, we must no longer be denied 
the rights of suffrage, we must no longer pay double taxes, 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 153 


nor must we be taxed at all, for the support of the ministers 
of another religion, for we hold these truths to be self evi- 
dent ‘That all men are created equal’ and ‘that is the duty 
of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks 
most acceptable to him.’ We ask no peculiar privileges; but 
we ask to be put upon an equal footing with the rest of our 
fellow citizens; we ask as freeman of Maryland the restora- 
tion of those rights recognized and acknowledged by the first 
founder of the state; this done and we are satisfied, this 
granted and we are with you, heart and hand, our motto, 
‘Independence or Death.’ ’’ 

And could requests so reasonable have been denied by 
those patriotic men who were taking up arms to resist the 
encroachments, and the tyrannical measures of Britain— 
could they have consistently refused to do justice at home? 
No, it would have been impossible, the religious test as to 
Catholics was abolished; the Church of England was no 
longer the established church, and taxation for its exclusive 
support was done away; forever. 

This was a great victory gained by the Catholics, it was 
granting them all that they had ever asked, all that they 
ever claimed in Maryland, even when they were in power; 
and it may be asserted with confidence that it was to satisfy 
them that the 35th article of the declaration of rights was 
inserted, which is in these words: ‘‘That no other test or 
qualification ought to be required, on admission to any of- 
fice of trust or profit than such oath of support and fidelity 
to this state, and such oath of office as shall be directed by 
this convention or the legislature of this state; and a declara- 
tion of a belief in the Christian religion.’’ 

Had ‘‘no other test’’—no other religious qualification, ex- 
isted previously to the Revolution in Maryland, the presump- 
tion is that no test would have been required, other than an 
oath of fidelity to the state, and this is the more probable, 
from the fact that religious tests were not required in any 
other state, save Massachusetts. But as ‘‘other tests’’ had 
long been in existence, the Catholics were perfectly right to 
make provision to protect themselves in future, for had the 


154 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


Declaration of Rights been entirely silent on religious sub- 
jects they had reason to fear from past experience they might 
again be proscribed from office, and taxed for the support of 
another church; and they had warning not only from their 
own sufferings, but from the persecution of their Catholic 
brethren in other states, particularly in New York previous 
to the Revolution, to be cautious in providing due guards 
for their future protection and self-preservation, for even 
in July, 1776, before the adoption of our constitution, it had 
been declared in the constitution of North Carolina ‘‘That 
no person who shall deny the truth of the Protestant religion 
shall be capable of holding any office’’—and the constitution 
of New Jersey, adopted also in 1776, declared that it was only 
believers in the Protestant faith who should be entitled to 
enjoy civil rights or be eligible to office. It was then wise 
and correct in the Catholics of Maryland to demand a solemn 
pledge that they should enjoy equal rights with the rest of 
their fellow citizens. This pledge was given, and this no 
doubt inspired them with more than common zeal and cour- 
age—they embarked in the Revolutionary contest with a 
noble ardour, none were more patriotic, none were more 
zealous in supporting the principles of Seventy-six, none 
stood higher in their country’s estimation; in the field their 
blood flowed freely, in their councils of the state and the 
nation they held the highest offices and filled them with much 
honor to themselves and advantage to their country. One of 
those illustrious men who signed the Declaration of Indepen- 
dence, Charles Carroll, of Carrollton, was a Maryland Cath- 
olic, and the second Governor under the new constitution, 
Thomas Sim Lee, was another. What a change was this, and 
what evils arose to the state from this great change? None, 
on the contrary--positive good was the consequence, and 
always will be, of a liberal and just course of conduct. 

It was therefore, Mr. Speaker, the persecution and pro- 
seription of the Catholics that caused the religious test to 
be first ‘used in Maryland. This was its first origin, perse- 
eution was its first parent, it was nurtured by superstition and 
prejudice; and though always a pale sickly child, unable to 


ee ee ee ee eee eee 


a ee eee ee eee lL 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 155 


bear the sun or to breathe the pure air of liberty, yet under 
the influence of priestcraft, in the hot bed of oppression it 
grew in statue; it assumed the meek, mild and heavenly form 
of Christianity, but its temper was that of a demon, blinded 
by intolerant zeal. Led astray by fanaticism, it vented its 
fury on those who worshipped the same God, and believed in 
the same Saviour, but it received from the spirit of Seventy- 
six a deadly blow, a mortal wound; its agonies have been 
long and painful, but its time has come, its end is at hand, 
and it would be an act of kindness and mercy to let its 
troubled spirit depart in peace—an outcast from every state 
but Maryland, it is doomed to die where it received its birth 
—and its grave, like that of a murderer, will be avoided with 
horror and detestation; its memory, let it be blotted out 
forever. 

And as good often arises out of seeming evil, the very 
proseription of the Catholics which gave use to the religious 
test, has ultimately proved not only advantageous to them, 
but to the cause of religious liberty; for the concessions made 
to them, the principles asserted in the declaration of rights 
completely dissolved the unholy alliance between Church and 
State in Maryland; and dissolved at such a crisis, severed un- 
der such circumstances, the act sealed with blood and ratified 
by patriotism, promises fair to be a perpetual, an eternal sep- 
aration; and woe to the man who ever dare attempt, openly 
or secretly, directly, or indirectly, to re-unite those whom 
Heaven itself has forever put asunder. 

‘Woe to the traitor, woe.’’ 

And.I again repeat that had the Constitution of Maryland 
been framed at a later period, there is no doubt but it would 
have recognized the liberal principle that no religious test 
should ever be required; the subject was much better under- 
stood after the close of war, and was fully and frequently dis- 
cussed previous to the adoption of the United States Constitu- 
tion, the views and sentiments of some of the leading states- 
men of that period are well expressed in the Federalist a 
well known publication, and from which I shall read a few 
extracts. 


156 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


‘‘In politics as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at 
making proselytes by fire and sword—heresies in either case 
can rarely be cured by persecution.”’ 

And speaking of the Constitution it is observed, 

‘“‘The door is open to merit of every description, 
whether native or adopted, whether young or old, and without 
regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession 
of religious faith.’’ 

‘‘The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, 
first to obtain rulers, who possess most wisdom to discern, 
and most virtue to pursue the common good of society. 

‘And again who are to be the objects of popular choice? 
Every citizen whose merit may recommend him to the esteem 
and confidence of his country. No qualification of wealth, 
of birth, of religious faith, or of civil profession, is permitted 
to fetter the judgment, or disappoint the inclination of the 
people.”’ 

These few extracts shew the opinions of the fellow labourers 
and bosom friends of Washington, and time has sanctioned 
their noble sentiments with full approbation—Maryland has 
long approved them, and she is again about to shew her 
approbation by adopting their very language and announe- 
ing to the world—that ‘‘no religious test shall ever be 
required as a qualification to any office or public trust, under 
the State of Maryland,’’ and the honourable task devolves 
upon us to declare her will, and to put upon record our 
assent to principles which ought ever to be held sacred, and 
which have been approved by almost every enlightened states- 
man, of every party, both in this country and on the other 
side of the Atlantic. And Mr. Speaker, to be plain and 
candid, I must say that I would rather be a doorkeeper in 
this house after the passage of the present bill, than to fill 
your honourable chair whilst the odious test remains—for it 
is not rank or station that confers merit—and I have known 
as much honesty and real worth in a humble doorkeeper, as 
in those who have filled the highest stations. 


‘‘The man’s the man for a’ that.’’ 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 157 


Why should we continue a test, unknown, unasked in any 
other of our sister states! Unknown, unasked under the 
government of the United States? It is not necessary, it 1s 
not right, it is ridiculous, it is absurd, it is a stain upon Mary- 
land and countenances a vile slander; it virtually acknowl- 
edges what I absolutely do deny, what I pronounce to be false, 
that we have so many among us who are enemies to the Chris- 
tian religion, that we cannot trust any man even to be a 
constable until he makes a declaration of his belief, and that 
not once in his life, but every time he is appointed to any office. 
If elected to this house for 20 years in succession, if chosen to 
the senate for 5 years at one time, he must every year declare 
and sign himself a Christian, and this is accompanied with 
another insulting oath: ‘‘That he does not bear allegiance 
to the king of Great Britian.’’ An oath which at the session 
of 1820, I endeavored in vain to get abolished, but which the 
ood sense of this legislature will, I am satisfied, send to the 
same tomb with the religious test. Our allegiance to heaven 
is doubted in the one case, and our allegiance to the state in 
the other; and doubted, although from our cradles we have 
been known to be openly and avowedly Christians, and 
although we may have served seven long years in the Revo- 
lutionary War, and have fought and bled in the cause of 
Independence, and although that Independence was ac- 
knowledged by Britain herself forty years ago; surely, surely 
it is time to put an end to their inconsistencies, to abolish 
those absurd and unnecessary qualifications to office. 

- But is Christianity not to be protected? Protected against 
whom? Who are its enemies? I know of none. Public 
opinion protects it, and public opinion is sufficient to restrain 
and defeat all attempts that may be made to injure the cause 
of religion. Female influence strongly protects it; the sweet 
example of one lovely woman is superior in power to ten 
thousand religious tests—they irresistibly impel us to be 
virtuous; from woman in infancy we first learn those precepts 
of religion which we never forget—they mould us in youth, 
and they manage us in age—they are our best friends and 
our best instructors—and never does woman appear in so 


158 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


lovely and interesting an attitude, as when on her knees at 
the throne of grace, nor can purer incense ascend on high 
than the prayers of an affectionate and virtuous woman— 
and thank heaven, woman, lovely woman, is on my side, and 
many a devout request is at this moment made by many a 
noble hearted woman that this bill may pass; and their 
prayers will be heard in heaven, and favorably answered. 

But even than public opinion—even than woman—a 
greater is here. The Christian religion does not require— 
does not stand in need of human protection—it does not 
command—it does not authorize the interference of the civil 
power to aid its cause—it is all powerful in itself, and its 
Divine Author has said that the gates of hell shall never pre- 
vail against it; and I appeal to this blessed book (the Bible) 
and assert that it neither commands nor requires the inter- 
ference of the civil authority in its behalf. ‘‘It is not of this 
world.’’ Salvation is here freely offered to men, but if the 
previous boon is refused, they are not answerable to any 
human tribunal for their neglect—they are not to be 
punished and denied the enjoyment of civil rights because 
they do not embrace the doctrines of the gospel—nor are they 
to be tempted with the offers of office, and power and wealth 
to make or keep them Christians. Christianity has no perse- 
cution about it—it is not congenial to its growth, its first 
principles are peace and good will to all men—it condemns 
all uncharitableness, it inculeates kindness to all—even to 
our enemies—its spirit is love—love to God, and love to man 
—it denounces bigotry and hypocrisy—declares that mercy 
is better than sacrifice—forbids us to judge others lest we 
be judged, and tells us in language too plain to be misunder- 
stood that faith without works is dead, and that he who 
saith he loves God and hateth his brother is a har. 

I am not an enemy to Christianity, it is as I have told you, 
the religion I profess to believe—it was my father’s—it is 
my children’s—it is my best hope on earth, and enables me to 
bear up with some degree of fortitude against the troubles 
and trials of life—nor am I half way Christian, in my belief— 
whatever I may be in practice—I believe in the Holy Trinity, 


eo 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 159 


and if I know myself rather than abjure my religion, I could 
walk with perfect resignation from this house to the scaffold. 
And it is that very religion which has taught me not to 
condemn another because he differs from me in opinion; to 
his own master he standeth or falleth. Poor, weak, fallible 
creatures aS we are; who gave us the power to judge others 
for their opinions? We have no such power and now there- 
fore dare we impiously usurp the power of the Deity and 
punish our brother for his very thoughts—those thoughts 
which God has created and ordained to be free. How dare 
we attempt to avenge the insults which we suppose are 
offered to him who said ‘‘vengeance is mine—I will repay.”’ 

I was much pleased a few mornings past, when my young 
and amiable friend, from Talbot, came into the Washington 
room, and observed in style and language far more eloquent 
than I can use, how much goodness was displayed by our 
Creator. ‘‘See’’ (he said) ‘‘how beautiful does the glorious 
sun rise in the East upon a guilty and a sinful world.’’ He 
was right. God is indeed kind and gracious to man—his 
remarks were strong and impressive, and strong in favor of 
the principles I advocate. The sun does rise on the evil and 
on the good, and He sendeth rain upon the just and upon the 
unjust, and we are commanded by our Saviour himself to 
imitate our Maker in His divine perfection—in His acts of 
goodness, loving kindness and tender mercy, which are 
declared to be over all His other works; to ‘‘be perfect even 
as our Father in Heaven is perfect,’’ and these acts of 
imitation are within our power—it is only in such acts that 
we can imitate Him. We can “‘love our enemies’’—we can 
‘‘bless them that curse us’’—and ‘‘do good to them that 
hate us’’—and we can ‘‘do unto others whatsoever we would 
that they should do unto us.’’ This is Christianity, and 
stronger arguments against test laws cannot be adduced, they 
will convince. I trust even my friend from Talbot; for if 
God can bear with sinful man cannot sinful man bear with 
his brother? Must he not only take him by the throat and 
say ‘‘pay me that thou owest’’—but must also tell him you 
shall believe as I do, else you shall be punished, you shall be 


160 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


proseribed from office—denied the enjoyment of your civil 
rights, taxed to support the ministers of a religion in which 
you do not believe—you shall be taxed doubly to pay the 
expenses of a government in which you are not represented 
—if all this will not convince you, and convert you, if you 
will not turn apostate from the religion of your fathers— 
you shall be outlawed, banished, exiled from your home, your 
property confiscated, your homes branded with infamy— 
and if still ineorrigible—still heretical—you shall be brought 
to the rack—tortured to death, or suffered to expire of a 
gibbet like a felon, or in the more cruel flames; and all this 
out of pure love to your immortal soul—all this to make you 
a true Christian. 

It is almost madness, Mr. Speaker, to think that all these 
dark deeds have been done, and done in the name of religion; 
done under the cloak of Christianity; done, did I say? They 
are yet daily done, done in some degree in Maryland, done 
in England, in Ireland, miserable, wretched heart-broken 
Ireland—and done, or done of late in their worst forms in 
Spain and Portugal ;—and if they are justifiable in the least, 
they are justifiable in the highest degree, for they are all 
sprung from the same infernal parent, persecution. Yes, 
Maryland, our own Maryland, has been the scene of religious 
persecution, and our statute books present some laws which 
the zealous Christians of 1776, and 1723, thought as necessary, 
as some among us now do the religious test—it is only three 
sesslons ago, since one of these abominable laws was repealed, 
which provided for boring the tongues, and branding the 
foreheads (sweet Christian remedies) of those who did not 
believe in the Holy Trinity or denied the unity of the God 
Head, ete. These laws shew us what man is, when he is led 
away by religious zeal; this shews the necessity of protecting 
the rights of conscience against all earthly interference, for 
once admit the principle that we may interfere with the right 
of conscience in any, the least degree, there is no point which 
we can stop—no limits to tell us ‘‘hitherto we may come, but 
no further’’—it may begin with the person or property, but 
it has no bounds but the grave—its limits end only with life. 





THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 161 


But who are proscribed in Maryland, who are denied the 
enjoyment of civil rights on account of their religion? 
Every man is proscribed who does not declare and subscribe 
his belief in the Christian religion; and some as worthy 
citizens as any in the state, and who stand as high in public 
estimation, are thus proscribed. Men who in peace and in 
war have proved themselves faithful and true to their 
country’s cause, men too, who worship the same God and 
who have the same revelation with us; who believe in a 
future state of rewards and punishments; from whom our 
religion is derived, ‘‘from whom pertaineth the adoption, 
and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, 
and service of God and the promises; whose are the fathers 
of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all 
God blessed forever.’’ (Rom. 9 chap. v. 4 and 5.) To them 
we are indebted for a principal part of our religious 
exercises; their ten commandments we have adopted; their 
psalms we sing every sabbath day; their principles we pro- 
fess; their precepts we inculcate: from the cradle to the 
grave, we are indebted to them, and to their religious 
writings. We are told of Noah’s Ark, and of the Red Sea, 
at our baptisms—Isaae and Rebecea are pointed out to us 
as a faithful pair when we are united in marriage, and when 
we are carried to our long home, to the house appointed for 
all living, the words of their prophet are proclaimed—I know 
that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the 
latter day upon the earth;—and when the last sad scene 
is about to close on us, when the earth is remitted to earth, 
ashes to ashes and dust to dust, again the beautiful language 
of their inspired writers sounds with a pleasing melancholy 
air in the ears of survivors, and warns them also to prepare; 
tells them that ‘‘man that is born of a woman is of few days 
and full of trouble.’’ Yet strange to say though in religion 
we unite with them and though we use their very religious 
writings in our most solemn feasts and ceremonies, yet we 
give our religion as an excuse for not admitting them to the 
enjoyment of civil rights—we deny to the most worthy 
among the Hebrews, the privilege granted to the most profili- 


162 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


gate, to the vilest of the vile, who will call himself a Christian, 
even though by his conduct he denies and disgraces his 
profession. 

Their religious doctrines are contained in the Old Testa- 
ment—in Moses and the Prophets—and what does the Church 
of England say in the 7th Article of the Old Testament— 
these are the words—‘‘The Old Testament is not contrary to 
the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlast- 
ing life is offered to mankind by Christ who is the only 
mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. 
Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the 
Old Fathers did look only for transitory promises.’’ Under 
this explanation from the church itself, our Hebrew brethren 
might come forward and sign a declaration of their belief in 
the Christian religion—for they too believe in the Messiah— 
and it shews that they are truly conscientious and faithful 
even to the letter of their religious professions, for they 
prefer suffering, persecution, to doing any act that might 
be construed even doubtful. 

But it is not only in the articles of the church that the 
children of Israel are counted as Christians; we are told in 
the epistle to the Hebrews, that Moses ‘‘esteemed the re- 
proach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt’’; 
and we are told in the same epistle of the faith of a long list 
of patriarchs from Abel to Samuel, we are told by Christ 
himself that ‘‘ Abraham rejoiced to see his day, and he saw 
it and was glad’’; He tells us that ‘‘ Moses spoke to Him—and 
He also declared that salvation is of the Jews.’’ 

And as salvation is of the Jews in the days of old so we are 
again to be indebted to their persecution for the complete 
triumph of religious liberty in Maryland; and as it was the 
persecution of the Catholics that led the way to the dissolution 
of Church and State—so the proscription of the Jews will end 
in benefiting not only them and their Christian brethren, but 
will shed lustre on the character of Maryland, by causing 
the religious test to be abolished forever. 

What does our test law say to the Hebrews? It tells them 
that they shall perform all the duties and bear all the 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 163 


burthens of citizens without enjoying common privileges. 
This is unjust, and it is peculiarly and severely felt by par- 
ents, and every parent knows how dear a child’s welfare and 
happiness is, but what do we say to parents in Israel? We 
tell them your son may be all that is wise and good, he may 
take the first honours at school both for learning and good 
conduct; he may possess talents of the first order, and merit 
the most exalted, be beloved by his fellow citizens; and capable 
of doing them much service, but let him be as wise and pa- 
triotie as Washington, he never can represent the people in 
the legislature nor command them in the militia; let his legal 
acquirements be ever so great and his eloquence ever so bril- 
hant, he will not be permitted to plead at the bar, nor sit 
upon the bench—he cannot be an attorney, a judge, a justice 
—no, not even a constable; he must serve on juries, pay taxes, 
bear all public burdens, do militia duty and yet be denied the 
enjoyment of those civil rights which every other member 
of the community enjoys. 

Am I in Maryland Mr. Speaker, and are these things done 
here? In that Maryland who in the times that tried men’s 
souls was found faithful and true and whose gallant sons 
reaped a rich harvest of honour—in that Maryland whose 
bravery on the ocean, the lakes and the land in the late war 
was often nobly displayed, that kind, good, virtuous, hos- 
pitable Maryland, is it possible that Maryland is so cruel to 
her own offsprings, so hard hearted to her own children as 
to deny them a seat at her table, to refuse them a portion 
of that bread of which she has enougk and to spare? It is 
too true these things are so. Yet Maryland is not to blame, 
she has been kept in ignorance, she knew not that some of her 
children were kept in bondage by prejudice and superstition ; 
but she hears their voices, she bursts their prison doors and. 
sets them free; she kindly embraces them and they seem 
dearer to her from the sufferings they have so long and so 
patiently endured. 

This bill ought to pass if it was only to do justice to the 
long oppressed Hebrews; but it is not for their benefit alone; 
it is establishing a general principle which ought to have 


164 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL — 


been incorporated into our constitution long ago, a principle 
sanctioned by reason, by religion and by common sense; a 
principle recognized in every other state in the Union, 
approved by the patriots of the Revolution, sanctioned by 
wisdom and virtue and tested by experience. 

I have consumed much of your time Mr. Speaker, and 
could still say much more on this important subject, for every 
day and almost every hour there is something new in relation 
to it brought to my knowledge. I consider it the most 
important subject that will come before us this session. Our 
finances, it is true, are not in a flourishing condition, and will 
require attention, but ‘‘ways and means’’ will be found to 
bring us out of difficulty—the state is still solvent, the state 
is rich, rich in resources, but what is a money question in 
comparison with one involving the great principles of civil 
and religious liberty? Let us do justice in this respect, and 
we need not fear but what our money concerns will all be 
easily and satisfactorily arranged. 

For the present then I will pause, to hear what citar 
may have to say, and as [ have had the first, I should wish to 
have the last word on the subject. A few short years at 
most Mr. Speaker, and you and I and all who now hear me 
must leave this transitory scene—let us then pass this bill— 
let us pass it unanimously, we never will repent it—even on a 
dying pillow, it will comfort us to think that we have done 
at least one good act in our lives, that we have been instru- 
mental in establishing religious freedom in Maryland—that 
we have broken the yoke of superstition and prejudice and 
let the oppressed go free, and that we have caused happiness 
to many an anxious heart. 


Lay old superstition low, 

Let the oppressed people go, 
To the bill let none say no, 
Aye! unanimously. 


The Act giving the Jews complete religious freedom passed 
the December session of 1824. The following address by Col. 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 165 


J. W. D. Worthington, did much to hasten the passage of the 
measure: 


Mr. Speaker :— 

On a subject of this high importance, I feel a deep solici- 
tude. It seizes on the feelings and anxiety of the old and 
the young, suspends the light pursuits of the gay and the 
thoughtful, become doubly attentive on this momentous 
question. See what an extraordinary concourse from all 
quarters, of all ages and sexes, this discussion today has 
attracted to your house!—every lobby, aisle and avenue 
crowded almost to suffocation ! 

This is a spectacle which no other nation on the earth, on 
an occasion like this (the dispassionate discussion of a 
political question, though not entirely abstract, yet least 
complained of by those who both theoretically and practically 
are affected by it) can exhibit, unless a discoloured and in- 
flamed resemblance to it may be occasionally found amongst 
some of the high-minded nobles and honest yeomanry of the 
Kingdom of Great Britain. Nowhere else on this hapless 
political sphere, than within the limits of our union, need 
the patriot or philanthropist look for the realization of the 
scene now before our eyes! 

I shall treat this subject with great gravity, and endeavour, 
by matters of fact, unquestionable calculations, and plain 
but honest reasoning, to convince this honourable house of 
their duty and necessity in passing this Confirmatory Act. 
. I shall deal in no ingenious hypothesis, no wild speculations! 
And though ‘‘bright-eyed fancy hover o’er,’’ I shall restrain 
even a look towards these flowery fields, where, in the fairy 
morning of life, it so delighted me to roam. 

I shall divide my subject into two parts, by laying down 
two propositions: 

1st. This disqualification is against the spirit of our consti- 
tution, and the letter of that of the United States, and against 
the genius and character of the government of our State and 
Union, and the age in which we live. 

2nd. It is against the policy of our country. 


166 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


Sir. The whole scope of the Declaration of Rights, and 
the Constitution of Maryland, go to promulgate and establish 
our unrestrained and liberal form of government. It exists 
only in this character, and breathes only this spirit—so that 
this religious restriction seems to be an alien and disjointed 
member of that compact—an intruder, an interpolator. 
Upon a fair and liberal construction, even in ordinary 
concerns, this repugnant condition would be controlled and 
merged in the clear and unequivocal intention of the whole 
instrument. It is superfluous to refer to any particular 
clause or section. It must be recollected, too, that this basis 
of our state rights was framed at so early a period as 
August, ’76, when. something of monarchial and colonial 
prejudice, and narrow-mindedness, still hung about us— 
passing upwards, from dependence to freedom! So, the soul, 
as it is quitting its earthly tenement, may have some mortal 
particles hanging about it, till aspiring aloft, those grosser 
elements fall to the ground as she reaches her pure and in- 
corruptible abode! 

Not so with the Constitution of the Union—that was framed 
many years after, when we had passed from colonial mis- 
government through the fiery ordeal of a long Revolutionary 
War—had reposed after its termination under a con- 
federation, and then, in a manner defecated and tranquil; the 
sacred charter, the Constitution of the United States was 
elaborated into being. There we have a right to look for, and 
there we see, this wily enemy to equal rights could find no 
habitation nor resting place; the gates and the walls were too 
well watched, and his crippled wing could not now lft him 
from the earth to soar above those impassable barriers. No 
religious test stands in high relief over the very portals of 
the temple, and intolerance falls broken and prostrate at 
the sight! This was no hasty principle engrafted in the 
Constitution—it grew out of the plighted faith of the pa- 
triots and heroes of the Revolution, and the wishes of the 
states after the dissolution of the confederacy. I will, with 
very few comments, read from this old and venerable edition 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 167 


of the proceedings of the Revolutionary Congress, express au- 
thorities to substantiate my assertion. 


JOURNALS OF CONGRESS 


Address to the inhabitants of Quebee—vol. i. p. 60. 


‘“We are too well acquainted with the liberality of senti- 
ment distinguishing your nation, to imagine that difference 
of religion will prejudice you against a hearty amity with us. 
‘You know that the transcendent nature of freedom elevates 
those who unite in her cause above all such low-minded 
infirmities,’’ &c. 


Address to the oppressed inhabitants of Canada—vol. i. p. 
TRUDE 


‘‘Nay, the enjoyment of your very religion, in the present 
system, depends on a legislature in which you have no share, 
and over which you have no control,’’ &e. &e. 


To encourage foreigners to quit the British service—vol. 11. 
Dac 2. 


‘“Whereas, it has been the wise policy of these states to 
extend the protection of their laws to all those who settle 
among them, of whatever nation or religion they may be, 
-and to admit them to a participation of the benefits of civil 
and religious freedom; and the benevolence of this practice, 
as well as its salutary effects, have rendered it worthy of 
being continued in future times,’’ &e. 


New Jersey representation on the articles of confederation, 
vol. iv. p. 269. 


In the fifth article, where, among other things, the qualifi- 
cations of the delegates from the several states are described, 


168 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


there is no mention of any oath, test, or declaration, to be 
taken or made by them, previous to their admission to seats 
in Congress. ‘‘It is indeed to be presumed, the respective 
states will be careful that the delegates they send to assist 
in managing the general interests of the union, take the oaths 
to the government from which they derive their authority,’’ 
—further— ‘‘we are of opinion, that some test or obligation 
is necessary.’ 


The Constitution as passed September 28th, 1787—vol. 
ATT pi 107: 


‘No Religious Test shall ever be required to any office or 
public trust under the United States. 


May 12th, 1788, vol. XII. p. 171. The Convention of 
South Carolina wished the following amendment, but it was 
refused : 


‘‘Resolved, that the 3d. Sec, of the 6th Article ought to 
be amended, by inserting the word ‘‘other,’’ between the 
words ‘‘no’’ and ‘‘religious.’’ 


Vol. XIII. p. 172. The New Hampshire Convention 
remonstrated, that 


‘Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to 
infringe the rights of conscience.”’ 


Convention of Virginia—vol. XIII p. 176. On 27th June, 
1788, pronounced that 


‘“All men have an equal unalienable and natural right to 
free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of 
conscience; and that no particular religious sect or society 
ought to be favoured or established by law in preference to 
others.’’ 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 169 


Vol. XIII p. 178. Lastly, the Convention of New York 
declared, 


‘““That the people have an equal, natural, and unalienable 
right, freely and peaceably to exercise their religion, accord- 
ing to the dictates of conscience; and that no religious sect 
or society ought to be favoured, or established by law, in 
preference to others.”’ 


Thus, sir, we see that toleration—that no religious test, 
was the very corner-stone laid by our illustrious progenitors, 
at the foundation of the temple of liberty. Even the highly 
interesting state of New Jersey, whose bosom was not yet 
cicatrized, bearing the hallowed wounds of Monmouth, and 
of Trenton, though she gravely asked for it, could not obtain 
a test. Nor could South Carolina with all her just weight 
of character—fresh in the renown of her statesmen, and the 
brilliancy of her achievements, obtain the insertion of the 
little word ‘‘other,’’ because, that would have implied, that 
there was some kind of test, and the framers of the Constitu- 
tion would not suffer any thing in it, even by implication, to 
smack of such a conclusion. Suppose, out of the 213 repre- 
sentatives now in Congress, one ‘‘whose heads no hellebore 
could cure,’’ were to rise in his place, and move to amend the 
Constitution, by inserting a religious test; I am certain, he’ 
would not get a solitary member to second him. His name 
might descend to posterity, but it would be like Arostratus, 
who fired the temple at Ephesus; and if, in August, ’76, a test 
had not deen foisted into the constitution of Maryland, any- 
one who would attempt it, at this period, would share the 
same fate. If such a thing could not be dreamt of then, why 
should it be suffered to exist? Like the unprofitable fig-tree, 
it bears no fruit, ‘‘eut it down, why cumbereth it the 
ground ?’’ We have now 24 states, eleven of which have been 
added since the Revolution ; in every one of which, a religious 
test has been expressly excluded; what can be a stronger 
proof of the genius and spirit of the age in which we live? 


170 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


Even in the old states, but two or three retain a test—in the 
others, it is expressly excluded. A person was, some years 
or so past, elected in the N. C. legislature; she has a strict 
test—his seat was attempted to be vacated; it was determined 
that the state test was repugnant to the Constitution of the 
U. S., and he retained his seat. He was a Jew! What does 
this show, but that an isolated and odious disability, like this, 
is swept away before the age. 

Yet, a writer under the signature of Orthodox, a large and 
well written paper, as to style and sophistry, which has been 
officiously, nay, obtrusively laid on the tables of the members 
of this house, and which, I presume, comes from high and 
opulent authority; perhaps from a bishop, who was bred a 
lawyer, or from the private pen of some modern Gil Blas, 
and some sage writer of Homilies. But from the preponder- 
ance of astutia in this production, I think our modern wag 
will not tell his seribbling reverence, that his faculties begin 
to fail—but I will tell him, that he has misstated and mis- 
quoted the constitution and the facts, &e. 

To maintain the propriety of our still retaining the test, 
he says—‘‘In several of the states, the Christian religion is 
expressly recognized and established.’’ To make this as- 
sertion more effectual, he puts an asterisk (*) to it; and 
immediately under ‘‘Orthodox,’’ at the bottom of the fifth 
column of his ‘‘Remarks on the proposed alteration of the 
Constitution of Md., in relation to the Test required for those 
who hold office,’’ he enumerates the states which have a test, 
or provisions. tantamount to it, in their several constitutions. 

lst—Massachusetts. She has not a full test, but very 
modified and restricted, Next, N. JI think he is wrong, 
from the view I have taken of her constitution; but not 
having the original charter, to which it refers, I cannot be 
positive. 3d—Penna. Here he shows the cloven foot. He 
thought, perhaps, the sceptical might take the trouble to 
look up the first, and finding him correct, would take the 
balance on faith—not so with me; I will sift him to the last 
grain. In the teeth of his assertion, this is the constitution 
of Penna: Art. 9, Sec. 4—‘‘No person who acknowledges the 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 171 


being of a God, and a future state of rewards and punish- 
ments, shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be dis- 
qualified to hold any office or place of trust, or profit, under 
this commonwealth.’’—Would this prevent a Jew, or a Mo- 
hammedan, or any other religious person under the canopy of 
heaven?—I suspect not. The 3d, or antecedent article, is 
equally liberal. 4th, Delaware—this hits his reverence 
plump on the head. The Ist Art. and 2nd Sec. says:—‘‘No 
religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office 
or public trust, under this state.’’ Now on my honour, if I 
were certain ‘‘Orthodox’’ was a layman, I would say he told 
a palpable falsehood; but fearing, lest he may be something 
amphibious, ‘‘some bishop-lawyer, or some lawyer-bishop,’’ 
I will only prove he has told it. 5th, Md—Ah! you are too 
rightly there—‘‘it is the very head and front of her offend- 
ing.’’ 6th, N. C.—right again. 7th and last, §. C.—as 
wrong as if he had burnt his coat or cassock. How reads 
the book? 

Article 4.—‘‘ All persons who shall be chosen or appointed 
to any office of profit or trust, before entering on the execution 
thereof, shall take the following oath: ‘I do swear, (or 
affirm,) that I am duly qualified, according to the Consti- 
tution of this state, to exercise the office to which I have been 
appointed, and will, to the best of my abilities, discharge the 
duties thereof, and preserve, protect, and defend the Consti- 
tution of this state, and of the U. 8.’ ’’ Not one word in the 
Constitution about recognizing or establishing any particular 
religion. How unworthy such deception, to be attempted 
against the people, and doubly so, when offered under the 
solemn sanction of religious truth! He speaks not one word 
of all the new states and their constitutions; and yet, what 
a strong instance is the state of Louisiana—though composed 
of French and Spaniards, in large proportions, who are as 
tenacious of their religion as any people on earth, yet they 
require no test; nor does the present territorial govern- 
ment of Florida, though in its chrysalis as to state sov- 
ereignty, and just disincumbered from the arms of the *“Be- 
loved Ferdinand.’’ 


nb ie THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


And now for a few of this writer’s false facts. The 
address is too long, and too full of inaccuracies, to be taken 
up regularly—a great deal of historical and _ theological 
detail—discussion of the general and state sovereignty, &c. 
&e., all pretty wide of the main question. But at the head 
of the third column, he says:—‘“This provision (that is, the 
test) is now the stumbling block, and the cause of great 
clamour, not among the Jews, it must be admitted.’’ No, sir, 
the Jews have not made a ‘‘great clamour,’’ because that 
would be the means of injuring both their cause and their 
standing in our country. But directly contrary to the 
inference of this writer, they have gravely and decorously, 
feelingly and ably presented, by my hands, a memorial to this 
honourable body, to relieve them from this test. He goes 
on—‘The truth appears to be, that the most zealous advo- 
cates of the proposed change, care nothing about the Jews’’; 
—talks about pagan idolators, heathens, infidels, &e. &. I 
am not going to discuss either metaphysical or religious 
subjects, or to advocate this creed, and attack that—I am 
speaking on a subject of civil policy. If, in my investigation, 
I shall sometimes be obliged to touch on things and opinions 
of a sacred and holy character, I shall endeavor to do it with 
all due reverence and solemnity. 

Having, I hope, fully discussed and proved beyond a 
doubt, my first proposition, I will proceed to the consideration 
of my second, under which, those parts of ‘‘Orthodox’’ which 
I have last read, will be noticed and refuted. I should be 
deficient in courtesy, if I were not to notice him, after his 
solemn invocation just before his parting benediction. ‘‘To 
our Christian brethren of the state, we appeal for exertion 
in this struggle. To the members of the legislature, in an 
especial maner, we direct our hopes. We invite them to 
pause, as on a tremendous precipice.’’—‘‘My dukedom to a 
dernier,’’ this writer would relish an established religion, 
and a union between Church and State! However, I will 
proceed in the plan I have laid down. 

It is certainly not only the policy of the Union, but of 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL VIS 


each particular state, to encourage the emigration of moral, 
enterprising, and affluent citizens to their shores. This 
assertion is now received as a political axiom.—The state, 
which creates or retains disqualifications, on any description 
of persons, will throw them into other states which have not 
such disqualifications, and thereby injure herself. Should 
this honourable House negative this bill, who could blame 
those gentlemen of the Hebrew church, who have signed the 
memorial before you, from quitting your state with their 
families, their connexions, and wealth, and choosing some 
other state, where they enjoy equal rights and favour, with 
all its citizens. Some persons may think that we should lose 
but little, either in character, wealth, or numbers; but I 
assure you, I have a document here, which confutes such a 
eoneclusion. Before I left Baltimore, I wrote on a small scrip 
of paper some half dozen queries and requested Solomon 
Ktting, Esq., to have them faithfully and truly answered, 
and transmit them to me. He did so, and enclosed a copy 
of them for General Winder, of the senate. This is Mr. 
Etting’s original statement, which I will read through as 
it 1s written. 


Solomon Etting’s Answers to Col. Worthington’s Queries. 
Question Ist.—The number of Jews in the State of Md.? 
Answer—Supposed, at least, one hundred and fifty. 

| Question 2nd.—The wealth of the Jews in the state of 

Md.? 
Ans.—General wealth difficult to ascertain; among a few 
heads of families, we may estimate half a million of dollars. 
Ques. 3d.—The number of Jews in the U. S.? 
Ans.—At least estimate, six thousand. 
Ques. 4th.—The wealth of the Jews in the U. S.? 
Ans.—This is equally difficult to ascertain with question 
2nd. Among the heads of families, in the principal cities, 
we may fairly estimate the wealth at ten millions of dollars. 
Ques. 5th.— What offices have been held, or are now held, 
by members of the profession? 


174 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


Ans.—To enumerate these, in detail, would be extremely 
tedious and difficult; we will mention a few within immediate 
recollection.— 

Solomon Bush, colonel in the American Revolution, a dis- 
tinguished officer, and who died after the Revolution, of the 
wounds received, or effects arising out of them. 

There were many valuable members, officers, principally, 
in the Revolution, from the south chiefly, who were nearly all 
cut off and destroyed early in the war; they were ever at 
their post, and always foremost in hazardous enterprises. 

Reuben Etting—Marshal of Md., appointed by Mr. Jeffer- 
son, and who continued in office until his removal from the 
state. 

Ditto—captain of a volunteer corps, raised very early in 
Balto., long under his command, and grew so numerous as 
to require being divided into companies, and thrown into 
the 5th regiment of Md. militia. 

Solomon Etting—Captain 5th regiment Md. militia, ap- 
pointed by governor Paca. 

B. I. Cohen—Lieutenant in Columbian Volunteers, at- 
tached to the 5th regiment Md. militia, appointed by Charles 
Ridgely, of Hampton, Esq. 


It may be well here to mention, that all the above officers 
under the state of Md., were understood so to be, and were 
held, without subscribing to the religious test oath. 

The strongest case applicable to the subject, is one at 
present existing, and may thus be related:—Early in the 
spring of the existing year, 1823, a number of spirited young 
men formed a volunteer corps of riflemen, known by the 
name of ‘‘Marion Corps,’’ without any previous knowledge 
on his part of even the existence of this company, they unan- 
imously determined, and did elect Benj. I. Cohen their cap- 
tain—a commission was received from Governor Stevens, 
but not qualified to, of course, in consequence of the exist- 
ence of the test law; the corps were made acquainted with 
this fact, and a resignation on his part of the command by 
the captain elect—at a meeting of the corps, called for the 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL Lid 


purpose, it was unanimously determined that no captain 
should be elected until the fate of the bill at present before 
the legislature, should be decided, and the corps is, at this 
time, commanded by the first lieutenant. This was the corps 
to which was presented the flag, by Gov. Stevens, on behalf of 
Mr. Cohen, as a testimony of his gratitude for their highly 
distinguished marks of esteem. 

There are very many instances of local appointment in 
the different states, both in a military and civil capacity; 
wherever the Israelites are numerous, or large and power- 
ful, those of talent will be found amongst them. 

M. M. Noah—Major in Peena, Consul to Tunis for the 
American government, and on his return to the country, ap- 
pointed by the legislature of N. Y. to the important station 
of Sheriff of their metropolis. 

A. A. Massias—Major in the U. 8. army during the late 
war, and retained in the service at the reduction of the army; 
he is now pay-master for the southern department. 

U. P. Levy—Lieutenant in the navy of the U. 8.; has re- 
peatedly distinguished himself in the service—last commander 
of the U. S. schooner Revenger, and lately sailed for London 
and Paris, as bearer of despatches to the ministers of the gov- 
ernment at those places. 

There are very many midshipmen, cadets, &c., &e. 


Here is another paper, which contains the names of a corps 
of volunteer infantry, in Charleston, 8S. C. in Feb. 1779; it 
was composed chiefly of Israelites, residing in King’s street, 
and was commanded by Capt. Lushington, and afterwards 
fought under Gen. Moultrie at the battle of Beaufort. 

And yet this writer, ‘‘Orthodox,’’ wishes to make you be- 
lieve, that the father of his country, and hero of the Revolu- 
tion, under whom those Israelites so gallantly fought for 
freedom, would be in favour of the present restriction. At 
the bottom of his third column, he quotes from Washington’s 
Farewell Address, enjoining not only morality, but religion. 
Who doubts the correctness of those injunctions for a mo- 
ment?—No one. Does he say a word about preferring one 


176 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


religion to another? No. Then it has no peculiar bearing 
on this question, unless it be to show, that by his not limiting 
it to any particular sect, he is in favour of complete non- 
restriction in this respect. 

It is fortunate that I have in my hands proofs that the 
father of his country was in favour of the political equality 
of the Israelites in particular. This is enough for me; 
for I make this a question between the 150 Israelites in the 
state of Md., and citizens thereof, whose elegant and touching 
memorial has been handed in and read at your table; and 
this branch of the legislature. I will not be fighting for ab- 
stract principles or rights—I am speaking for 150 Jews 
amongst a few of whom alone, is one million and a half of 
property, in the lands, chattels, and funds of your own 
state; men who, and their forefathers, have fought with 
‘Washington for the very liberty you now enjoy, and yet you 
refuse them a full and equal participation. 

These old papers have been preserved in the family of Mr. 
Cohen, of Balto., for many years; it shows how near to the 
heart of that people, this subject lies; yet how noiseless and 
unobtrusive they have been upon it; and it evinces their 
veneration for the American chief who poured this balm 
into their wounds. 

I will read them, or rather some extracts from them, bear- 
ing on the present point. I have selected three, all to be 
found in the Gazette of the U. S. of June, Sept. and Dec., 
printed at N. Y. and Phila., in 1790. 


Extracts of Address to General Washington. 


lst—From the Hebrew congregation of the city of Sa- 
vannah, of the 4th of June, 1790, presented by Mr. 
Jackson, one of the representatives of Ga., signed by Levi 
Sheftal, president, in behalf of the Hebrew congregation. 

““Sir :—Your unexampled liberality, and extensive phil- 
anthropy, have dispelled that cloud of bigotry and supersti- 
tion which has long, as a veil, shaded religion, unrivetted the 
fetters of enthusiasm, enfranchised us with all the privileges 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL it 


and immunities of free citizens, and initiated us into the 
grand mass of legislative mechanism.’’ 


Answer of General Washington. 


‘‘May the same wisdom-working Diety, who long since 
delivered the Hebrews from their Egyptian oppressors, 
planted them in the promised land, whose providential agency 
has lately been conspicuous in establishing these U. 8. as 
an independent nation, still continue to water them with the 
dews of heaven, and to make the inhabitants of every denom- 
ination participate in the temporal and spiritual blessings 
of that people whose God is Jehovah.’’ 


The next is an address of the Hebrew congregation in 
Newport, Rhode Island, which is so handsomely written, that 
I must take leave to read it entire. 


To the President of the United States of America. 


‘¢S1rr:—Permit the children of the stock of Abraham to 
approach you, with the utmost affection and esteem for your 
person and merit, and to join with our fellow-citizens in 
welcoming you to Newport. 

‘*With pleasure we reflect on those days—those days of 
difficulty and danger, when the God of Israel, who delivered 
David from the peril of the sword, shielded your head in 
the day of battle; and we rejoice to think, that the same spirit 
who rested in the bosom of the greatly beloved Daniel, en- 
abling him to preside over the provinces of the Babylonish 
empire, rests, and ever will rest, upon you, enabling you to 
discharge the arduous duties of CHIEF MAGISTRATE of 
these states. 

‘‘Deprived as we heretofore have been of the invaluable 
rights of free citizens, we now (with a deep sense of gratitude 
to the Almighty disposer of all events) behold a government 
erected by the MAJESTY OF THE PEOPLE—a govern- 
ment, which to bigotry gives no sanction—to persecution no 


178 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


assistance; but generously affording to ALL, liberty of con- 
science, and immunities of citizenship: deeming every one, 
of whatever nation, tongue or language, equal parts of the 
great governmental machine. This so ample, and extensive 
Federal Union, whose base is philanthropy, mutual confidence, 
and public virtue, we cannot but acknowledge to be the work 
of the great God, who ruleth in the armies of heaven, and 
among the inhabitants of the earth, doing whatever seemeth 
to him good. 

‘‘Hor all the blessings of civil and religious liberty, which 
we enjoy under an equal and benign administration, we de- 
sire to send up our thanks to the Ancient of days, the great 
preserver of men, beseeching Him that the angels who con- 
ducted our forefathers through the wilderness into the prom- 
ised land, may graciously conduct you through all the diffi- 
culties and dangers of this mortal life. And when, like 
Joshua, full of days and full of honours, you are gathered to 
your fathers, may you be admitted into the heavenly para- 
dise, to partake of the water of life, and the tree of immor- 
tality. 

‘‘Done and signed by the order of the Hebrew congrega- 
tion in Newport (Rhode Island.) 

(Signed ) Moses Serxas, Warden. 
Newport, Aug. 17, 1790.’’ 


I must now be further indulged in reading the whole of 
the reply: 


To the Hebrew congregation in Newport, R. I. 


‘GENTLEMEN :—While I receive with much satisfaction 
your address, replete with expressions of affection and es- 
teem, I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you, that I 
shall always retain a grateful remembrance of the cordial 
welcome I experienced in my visit to Newport, from all 
classes of citizens. The reflection on the days of difficulty 
and danger which are past, is rendered the more sweet from 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 179 


a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncom- 
mon prosperity and security. 

**Tf we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages 
with which we are now favoured, we cannot fail, under the 
just administration of a good government, to become a 
great and a happy people. 

‘“‘The citizens of the United States of America, have a 
right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind 
examples of an enlarged and hberal policy—a policy worthy 
of imitation. All possess alike, liberty of conscience, and 
immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration 
is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class oi 
people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent 
natural rights. For, happily, the government of the United 
States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution 
no assistance, requires only that they who live under its 
protection, should demean themselves as good citizens, in 
giving it, on all occasions, their effectual support. 

‘‘It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my char- 
acter, not to avow that I am pleased with your favourable 
opinion of my administration, and fervent wishes for my 
felicity. May the children of the stock of Abraham who 
dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will 
of the other inhabitants—while every one shall sit in safety 
under his own vine and fig-tree, and there shall be none to 
make him afraid. 

‘‘May the Father of all mercies scatter light, and not 
darkness, in our paths, and make us all in our several voca- 
tions, useful here, and in his own due time and way, ever- 
lastingly happy. 

GEORGE WASHINGTON.”’ 


T come now to the third and last, to which I shall refer. 
It is ‘‘The Address of the Hebrew Congregations in the 
cities of Phila., N. Y., Charleston and Richmond, to the 
President of the U. S.’’ As both the Address and the Reply 
are short, and very interesting, I will read them entire. 


180 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


‘¢Srr:—It is reserved for you to unite in affection for your 
character and person, every political and religious denomi- 
nation of men; and in this will the Hebrew congregations 
aforesaid yield to no class of their fellow-citizens. 

‘‘We have hitherto been prevented by various cireum- 
stances peculiar to our situation, from adding our congratu- 
lations to those which the rest of America have offered on 
your elevation to the chair of the Federal government: 
Deign, then, illustrious Sir, to accept this our homage. 

‘The wonders which the Lord of hosts hath worked in 
the days of our forefathers, have taught us to observe the 
oreatness of His wisdom and His might, throughout the events 
of the late glorious Revolution; and while we humble our- 
selves at His footstool in thanksgiving and praise for the 
blessings of His deliverance, we acknowledge you, the leader 
of the American armies, as His chosen and beloved servant. 
But not to your sword alone is our present happiness to be 
ascribed: that, indeed, opened the way to the reign of 
freedom; but never was it perfectly secure, till your hand 
gave birth to the Federal Constitution; and you renounced 
the joys of retirement, to seal by your administration in 
peace what you had achieved in war. 

‘*To the eternal God, who is thy refuge, we commit in our 
prayer the care of thy precious life; and when, full of years, 
thou shalt be gathered unto the people, thy righteousness 
shall go before thee, and we shall remember, amidst our 
regret, ‘that the Lord hath set apart the godly for himself,’ 
whilst thy name and thy virtues will remain an indelible 
memorial on our minds. 

MANUEL JOSEPHSON. 

‘‘For and in behalf and under the authority of the several 
congregations aforesaid. 

Philadelphia, 138th December, 1790.’’ 


To which the President was pleased to return the follow- 
ing answer: 


‘‘To the Hebrew Congregations, in the cities of Phila., 
N. Y., Charleston and Richmond. 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 181 


‘“GENTLEMEN :—The liberality of sentiment towards each 
other which marks every political and religious denomination 
of men in this country, stands unparalleled in the history of 
nations. 

‘‘The affection of such a people, is a treasure beyond the 
reach of calculation; and the repeated proofs which my 
fellow citizens have given of their attachment to me, and 
approbation of my doings, form the purest source of my 
temporal felicity. The affectionate expressions of your 
address, again excite my gratitude, and receive my warmest 
acknowledgment. 

‘“The power and goodness of the Almighty, so strongly 
manifested in the event of our late glorious Revolution, and 
His kind interposition in our behalf, have been no less visible 
in the establishment of our present equal government. In 
war, He directed the sword; and in peace, He has ruled in 
our councils. My agency in both has been guided by the 
best intentions, and a sense of the duty which I owe my 
country. 

‘‘And as my exertions have hitherto been amply rewarded 
by the approbation of my fellow citizens, I shall endeavour 
to deserve a continuance of it by my future conduct. 

‘‘May the same temporal and eternal blessings which you 
implore for me, rest upon your congregations. 

G. WASHINGTON,”’ 


I have no doubt, numerous similar addresses and replies 
might be produced. These are amply sufficient to show the 
opinion of General Washington on this subject, and put to 
rest, I hope, forever, any similar appeals to his great name, 
to support a religious test against any religion whatever, 
much less that of the children of Abraham. I therefore, not 
only contend for the abstract right, the general principle of 
no religious test, but take the bull by the horns at once, and 
say, that, contrary to early pledges, to all rational expec- 
tations, you withhold important privileges and benefits of 
your promised free government, from one hundred and fifty 
inhabitants of your state, impeached with no crime, and 


182 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


charged with no earthly defaleation; but on the contrary, 
some of whom, you all know, for high character in society, 
for moral worth, and strict religious duties, according to the 
ancient and venerated theology of their forefathers, are a 
pride and an ornament to any country. Who are those Jews 
whom you thus shut out of the pale of civil rights? They 
descended from a nation of mighty men, famed for military 
exploits, and their high literary attainments. The country 
of Solomon, of Saul of Tarsus, one of the strictest of the 
Pharisees, whose superhuman eloquence made Felix tremble, 
confounded Agrippa on his throne and shook the Areopagus 
of Athens, as he declared to them the unknown God, whom 
they ignorantly worshipped! who, if he filled the spot I now 
so feebly occupy, would by the thunder of his voice, and 
the lightning of his eye, pierce through and dissipate this 
thick cloud which has so long hung over the better genius of 
your state. It was he who reasoned ‘‘of temperance, 
righteousness, and judgment to come.’’—Yet he was born a 
Jew. Who were the most sacred and famed holy men and 
prophets of the olden times? Elisha, Isaiah, Daniel, were 
all Jews. Was not our Saviour of the seed of Abraham, of 
the tribe of Judah, of the family of David?—Why, these 
people in religion were your especial progenitors; and the 
same God who led Moses and the children of Israel out of the 
bondage of Egypt to the fertile vales of Palestine, led you to 
independence, to happiness! You have no followers of the 
koran, nor the zenda vesta, nor the morals of Confucius, nor 
the shaster of the Bramins here, to complain of this test—so 
that the only people it practically affects, are the followers of 
Moses. Whether you repeal the test, or suffer it to remain, 
it will never affect any bad Christian; for he who denies the 
truth and holiness of the religion of his fathers, will make 
your declaration of belief without even straining at the gnat. 
Your test has had no effect on the bad and hard-hearted; it 
is the good and the conscientious it bears so cruelly upon. 
To substantiate this important position, I will read the 
opinions of some of the ablest statesmen of the age in Europe 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 183 


—the opinions of two great rival political champions, Mr. 
Fox, and the younger Pitt. 

Mr. Fox said—‘‘Men should be tried by their actions, not 
by their opinions. This, if true with respect to political, was 
more peculiarly so with regard to religious opinions. In 
the position, that the actions of men, and not their opinions, 
were the proper objects of legislation, he was supported by 
the general tenor of the laws of the land. 

‘‘As to the disabilities heaped on the Roman Catholics of 
England, no man deplores them more than I do; and were I 
a member of the British parliament, I would be in the van to 
relieve them—because, when those disabilities were created, 
there might have been some fear of a foreign ascendency— 
now there is none. I will go on further with Mr. Fox, who 
says: 

‘There were many men, out of the established church, to 
whose services their country had a claim. Ought any such 
man be examined, before he comes into office, touching his 
private opinions ?—Was it not sufficient that he did his duty 
as a good citizen? Might he not say, without incurring any 
disability, I am a friend to the constitution, and on religious 
subjects must be permitted to think and act as I please? 
Ought their country to be deprived of the benefit she might 
derive from the talents of such men? But when did the test 
exclude the irreligious man, the man of profligate principles, 
or the man of no principle at all? Quite the contrary; to 
such men, the road to power was open—the test excluded 
only the man of tender conscience—the man who thought 
religion so distinct from all temporal affairs, that he held it 
improper to profess any religious opinion whatever, for the 
sake of a civil office. Was a tender conscience inconsistent 
with the character of an honest man?—or did a high sense of 
religion show that he was unfit to be trusted? Further, if 
the majority of the people of England should ever be in 
favour of the abolition of the established church, it ought 
to be abolished.’’ 

TI have before me some other remarks, both of Mr. Pitt and 


184 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


Mr. Fox, on the subject of the Test Act, Corporation Act, 
&e.; but I must conclude them; and I do not hesitate to say, 
this liberality of sentiment is, and has been, and ever will 
be, characteristic of great and liberal minds, in all ages, and 
in all countries. Even where there is an established church, 
as in England, you see this liberality of opinion. Mr. 
Madison’s remonstrances against the General Assessment of 
Va. in 1785, which I hold in my hand, breathes the same lofty 
and enlightened spirit—Church and State are distinct and 
separate here, and I hope they will ever remain so. 

Having thus established my propositions, beyond, I trust, 
the power of fair and honest contradiction, not by my own 
assertions and arguments, but by the highest authorities, 
supported by undeniable facts and caleculations—my duty, if 
I consulted my ease, might here induce me to conclude; but 
I am well aware, that a solid phalanx of numbers are arrayed 
against this bill, and it is not safe to leave the field, until I 
have exhausted every means in my power, far beyond my 
bare duty; then I shall repose, whether victorious or 
vanquished, in that tranquillity, which nothing ean disturb. 

Mr. Speaker :—In the remainder of the observations which 
I shall submit, as having a direct bearing, or even a remote 
influence, on this question, I shall be altogether guided by 
my recollections and feelings at the moment, as they may 
present or evolve themselves in the actual discussion. I now, 
therefore, pray you to listen to me with rather an indulgent 
ear. 

Sir, I am myself a Christian—an humble and feeble one 
indeed, and one who I am conscious is unworthy to ‘‘unloose 
even the latchets of the shoes’’ of many here present. And 
this charity and liberality which now induce me to advocate 
the cause of the house of David, make me feel that I aim at 
some distant and faint similitude to the acts of Him who was 
all goodness, all charity—-who could say to His enemies and 
persecutors, ‘‘Forgive them, they know not what they do.’’ 
—Qn this, Christianity in spirit and in truth, not in ceremony 
and persecution, I enjoy peace here, and humbly hope for 
eternal happiness hereafter. The sect in which I was bred, 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 185 


is the Protestant Episcopal Church. I have no doubt a 
person may get to heaven that way. My fathers thought it 
good enough for them; and I see numbers every day, of as 
good people as any I know, remaining in the same persuasion. 
Therefore, till I shall be convinced it is not good enough for 
me, I shall abide with them. The great fear I have, is, that 
I am not, nor never shall be, good enough for it—but that 
will be judged of hereafter. Yet I go to see and hear all 
sects; and I have full charity for all. I like some better 
than others, to be sure; but I have not a spark of enmity nor 
antipathy against a single one. Therefore, with me, the good 
and upright of every denomination, should enjoy complete, 
equal, civil and political rights. 

I know the great cry in this country against the Jews is, 
that they crucified Christ. It was specially pre-ordained by 
God, that act should be done, and they should do it. It was 
for your redemption. What right then have you to take into 
your hands vengeance and punishment? God can and will 
vindicate His own acts. Are you commanded to it? No: 
you are commanded the very reverse, by the very victim, 
the very author of the religion you profess—whose solitary 
sermon on the mount, is worth all that ancient and modern 
philosophers ever wrote or spoke! Suppose ancient Greece 
were to form a confederation of all her states, and deny the 
Athenians equal privileges, because they forced the half- 
Christian Socrates to drink the deadly hemlock: it would 
be not less unjust than your enmity, and, I say, persecution, 
against the Jews. I know not what these people may be in 
Europe, where they are borne down by despotism and covered 
with slander; but in America, they are some of our worthiest 
and best citizens: nor in their dealings, appearance, and inter- 
course in life, can you here discriminate them from other 
persons in similiar pursuits. Every avenue to wealth and 
official station is open to them under our general government. 
A Jew may be president of the U. 8.; and yet in Md. he can- 
not be a constable! unless he makes a false declaration. He 
cannot bring up his sons to the practice of the law, the 
high road to fame, and sometimes wealth, in this country. 


186 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


Was ever anything more cruel? I know an instance: Mr. 
Etting, of Baltimore, had a son of talents and acquirements: 
he spared no pains on him. The youth wished to study law. 
The father, with pain in his heart and tears in his eyes, 
told him that he could not. Even to be an attorney of a 
county court, he would have first to renounce the religion of 
his fathers. Is not this an outrage on the age? Yet in 
other states there are eminent lawyers, Jews: and so there 
will be here; for this wretched disability, if not this session, 
will certainly shortly be annihilated. 

Suppose Rothschild, who, with his immense wealth, like 
some mighty magician, dissolves and forms against the coali- 
tions of emperors, kings and potentates, by some convul- 
sion of the old world be driven to seek an asylum in this 
western hemisphere—though our climate, our general char- 
acter, our central position, our proximity to the metropolis 
of the Union, nay, many other peculiarities, should at first 
invite him to pitch his tabernacle in Md.; think, that the 
moment he recollected this test, he would not dash the gar- 
land chalice from his ips? With his genius and his wealth 
he would turn with loathing from you, to live in some 
Free State. No more than a month or two ago, a Protes- 
tant Church was involved in debt, in New Orleans, for about 
$20,000. It was set up at public sale, the pastor and con- 
gregation being unable to pay it, and bought by Mr. Judah 
Torah, a Jew. What did he do with it?—did he convert it 
into a warehouse, or set it up to make money on it? No: 
he gave it back, at a moderate rent, to the pastor and con- 
eregation. Verily, this ‘‘was an Israelite in whom there was 
no guile.’? Would a Christian have done this for a Jewish 
synogogue? Yes, if he were as good as a Christian, as that 
was as a Jew. His merely making his Declaration, which 
perhaps might enable him to be governor of the state, would 
have put him no nearer doing such an act as this, than if 
he had never made it. 

Let us say a word or two of the fair daughters of Jeru- 
salem; they, like our own matrons and maidens in this land 
of liberty, must have warm sympathies and acute sensibili- 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 187 


ties on subjects like these. Why should they not? Their 
ancestors had. In what ancient or modern history do you 
find a superior to the beauteous adopted daughter of Mordecai 
—whose devotion to country, whose obedience to her husband, 
placed her so far above Vashti, the rebellious queen of Ahas- 
uerus, who ruled from India to Ethiopia? The virtuous 
Susannah? And those amiable sisters, Martha and Mary, 
so exemplarily solicitous, not only about domestic duties, 
but the higher concerns of futurity !—their daughters of our 
time have rather improved than degenerated: they are still 
the roses of Sharon and the lilies of the valley. After thus 
seeing and knowing those people, experiencing the benefi- 
cial result from no Test in our general government, none in 
any of the new states, and retained but in two or three of the 
old—finding no possible ill to fiow from this liberality, I am 
at a loss to discover on any rational or religious principle, 
why anyone can, at this time of day, vote to retain it. Has 
anyone sort of blind and inveterable faith?—Against such, 
I am aware, even the most transcendent eloquence would be 
vain. 

‘e The lover may 
Distrust the look that steals his soul away; 
The child may cease to think that it can play 
With Heaven’s rainbow; Alchemists may doubt 
The shining ore their crucible turns out; 
But faith, too ardent faith, once wedded fast 
To some dear doctrine, hugs it to the last.’’ 





If they are not satisfied with all this experience, in their 
own country, I fear nothing I can say will alter them. And 
as Lazarus, while reposing in Abraham’s bosom, said to 
Dives, ‘‘neither would they believe one, although he returned 
from the dead.’’ They already have Moses and the prophets. 
But, Sir, religion is made the mere stalking-horse—it has 
nothing to do with this question—it is resorted to as a polit- 
ical fire-brand—as an electioneering expedient. We see pious 
persons of all denominations, whether Roman Catholic, Prot- 


188 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


estant, Methodist, etc., in favour of the repeal, and others 
of the same character against it. I have talked with many 
gentlemen here, who say they are in favour of the repeal, 
but come pledged to vote against it. I certainly shall not 
undertake to say, that they are not bound by those pledges 
—they best understand their own conscience—I am no easuist. 
As to myself, if I were to give a positive pledge, and the 
state of things and my opinions did not change honestly and 
rationally, from what they were when I gave the pledge, 
I would abide by it. But I would not suffer a portion of my 
constituents, who I was not morally certain were a majority, 
but believed to be a minority, to direct and control me on a 
great constitutional question like this. Indeed, as we take 
an oath on constitutional questions, the general rule in poli- 
tics, 1s, that on those questions you ought not to suffer your- 
self to be bound by instructions. J rather think so myself 
—certainly not subsequent to your election—but even then, or 
at any other time, whether you pledge or not, if you know 
and believe that your own opinion is contrary to a majority 
of your constituents, you ought to resign, or vote their will. 

I have no doubt but a large majority of the people of Md. 
are in favour of the repeal—and a member here, on consti- 
tutional question, acts for the state—therefore the little sec- 
tional politics should not govern him. In that view then 
pledges appear to me no more capable of chaining a delegate 
down to the earth, than were the wishes, whereby the 
Philistines attempted to confine the strong man in Scripture. 
The repeal passed both branches of the legislature last session ; 
it has just passed, and come down to us from the grave Senate 
this session, and I trust a majority of this House will give 
the finishing blow to this evil, and wipe this stain forever 
from our code. Once repeal this Test, and never again will 
there be even an attempt to restore it. 

On this subject, had I the power, I would send forth my 
voice, that it should be heard from Damascus to Ezion 
Gebar; up hither and down thither Jordon—from the Ara- 
bian Gulf to the Pillars of Hercules. It should roll its swell 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 189 


over the slumbering fisherman where Tyre once stood, and 
reverberate amidst the mountains of Gilboa. 

Sir, I impugn the motives of no gentlemen in this house, 
who may vote against this Confirmatory Act. Many advo- 
cates of the Test, both in and out of this house, I have no 
doubt, in their own judgment, are governed by high and 
pious motives. But I have thought some persons are in 
favour of the Test, because it operates as a sort of monopoly 
of offices. The more people you disqualify from holding 
offices, the more remain for them and their friends. 

This Test, Sir, is hke those powerful genii in the Arabian 
tales, placed at the portals to guard the treasure within; 
it stands like the cherubim of old, at the gate, with their 
flaming swords, to watch the Hesperian fruit of office and 
of place. Though, unlike the cherubim of old, the innocent, 
not the guilty, are here the objects of opposition. It is said, 
the Jews enjoy everything in Md., except appointment to 
office. Is this so slight a prohibition?—Is not wealth, and 
honour, and consequence, often, very often, included in this 
prohibition?—Is not political power, and office, and place, 
and patronage, with many men a ruling passion? If then 
our once happy and perfect first parents, could not be con- 
tented with every possession, but craved even the solitary 
apple that was forbidden them—how can the children of 
Abraham rest contented under a prohibition, which includes 
so many important and piquant incentives!—This is human 
nature. How was it with Haman, the high chamberlain of 
the king—blest with everything, even admitted with the 
royal spouse, the only guest at the queen’s banquet—yet, 
what availed all that, when there remained at the king’s 
gate one solitary individual, who sat still, and declined 
paying his homage and respect! 

Some fear, if we destroy the Test, we shall injure, nay, 
destroy, the Christian religion—why is it not destroyed in 
those states where it never has existed?—nearly 50 years 
have tested the wisdom of the omission. Why does it not 
affect your whole general government, Congress and all? 


190 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


Are they, or any one of them, less religious than this assembly, 
or any one of it?—Sir, that religion, whose founder was 
shadowed out in the Polio of the Mantuan Bard, to the 
heathen world, and by the Jewish prophets, and chief by 
him ‘‘whose hallowed lips were touched with fire,’’ to the 
Christian world, is not to be injured nor destroyed, by liber- 
ality, by charity! This Test is a restriction on the people— 
it says, they shall not elect a man for a particular service, 
unless he declare, after election, that he possesses a particular 
superadded qualification, which the people, who may have 
elected him, think has nothing to do with that service. The 
people have cause to complain, and a large majority of them 
do. It is vulgarly called a ‘‘Jew Bill’’; it might as well be 
called a ‘‘Mohammedan’”’ or ‘‘Persian Bill’’—indeed, its most 
proper name is, a ‘‘Turk Bill.’”’ 

It is against the spirit of the age—it is against the spirit 
of your declaration of rights: and on that rock, the Constitu- 
tion of the Union, I build my argument; and all the powers 
of sophistry and deception shall not prevail against it. In 
this position I rest secure and inexpugnable! 

I will forever hold up my hands against this restriction— 
it is the same spirit of persecution which drove our ancestors 
from Europe, from culture and civilization; and they 
preferred a settlement here, with freedom, amidst savages and 
a wilderness. Why do you not perform the precept of the 
religion you declare in?—‘‘Do unto others as ye would they 
should do unto you.’’—No, you do not, unless you shall con- 
firm this law. Do you not take away every spur to high- 
minded and honourable ambition ?—even professions by which 
they might earn their daily bread! Do you not wish to 
continue them forever hewers of wood and drawers of water? 
—You will be mistaken—already the mandate for this re- 
peal has gone forth, and it will, it must, ere long, be obeyed. 
I wish to pluck from the pile of religious intolerance, this 
last brand, and extinguish it forever. 

I shall enter my vote solemnly against the Test; whether 
my exertions be successful or not, I cannot tell; but be 
they as they may, I regard this as one of the proud days of 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 191 


my life, and though, like many past ones, bright to myself, 
it may not be so fortunate to others as I could wish. 

Israel prays to you in her oppression and tribulation! 
Hear her—you have no excuse; for I say, there is balm 
in Gilead—there is a physician there! It rests with you, 
who have the power to restore health to the daughter of 
her people!’’ 

John 8. Tyson of Baltimore, who followed Col. Worthington 
said: 


Mr. Speaker :— 

After having been for twenty years engaged in this arduous 
struggle for the rights of man, and sustained during the 
whole of that time repulse upon repulse, and disaster upon 
disaster, having felt the sweets of a victory obtained at one 
session, embittered by discomfiture at another—the friends 
of religious toleration succeeded during the last assembly 
in making a breach in the walls of the enemy. Under aus- 
pices the most favourable, with renewed vigour, in their 
arms, and ardour in their hearts, they again approach the 
broken wall, exclaiming, in the language of Henry, before 
Harfleur, and with the like assurance of success, ‘‘Once 
more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.’’ It is nat- 
ural for us to inquire, why the triumph of this cause has 
been so long delayed? 

I answer, because of the ignorance of some of the people, 
the prejudices of others, the bigotry of one portion, and the 
honest, but mistaken zeal of another—-an ignorance, prejudice 
—higotry, and zeal, fostered by political demagogues, who 
though in heart and soul, they were neither Christian, Jew, 
nor Turk, professed to be the humble supporters of the re- 
ligion of Jesus. 

Hence it was, that an opinion was inculcated among the 
people, that the test bill, as it was called, was a bill to abolish 
Christianity—that the state was about to be inundated with 
Jews and Turks—that Maryland would become another Ju- 
dea, and Baltimore another Jerusalem. Those demagogues 
have, however, within the last year, preserved a commendable 


192 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


silence. The people have been left free, to think and act for 
themselves—and they have left their delegates free to think 
and act for themselves; and the question is now submitted to 
an unpledged legislature. 

On all constitutional questions, and particularly on one 
of this kind, the first cry is, that the constitution is a sacred 
instrument, it ought not to be touched, it is much better to 
endure grievances than to remove them by an alteration of 
the constitution. 

In India, the people worship the great Mogul; in Europe, 
they worship their kings and emperors; here, however, they 
worship their constitution. This, though better than the 
others, is bad; because it is idolatry. Idolatry is still 
idolatry, whether the idol be a constitution or a king; and, I 
may add, that tyranny is still tyranny, whether the tyrant be 
a piece of paper in the shape of the law, or a despot in his 
kingly robes. As the idolatry of a people towards their king 
is the strongest support of his despotism and the inherent 
vices of his nature, so the idolatry of a people towards their 
constitution, is the strongest support of the tyranny of that 
constitution, and its inherent vices. 

Think not that I undervalue the great charter by which 
our government is bound together—I venerate, though I do 
not adore, our constitution; and it is because I venerate it, 
that I am anxious to purge it of whatever is calculated to 
render it less and less an object of reverence. 

The constitution itself gives us the right to alter and amend 
it. It is our duty to put this right in exercise, whenever 
experience demonstrates its necessity. I would search for 
the evil even through the ruins of the superstructure, and 
cleansing the foundation, build up the edifice anew, rather 
than permit the evil to remain, until it should itself have 
undermined the constitution, and in some ill-fated moment 
should bring it down to ruin upon our heads. But, sir, the 
evil we are now considering is not so difficult of access—it is 
upon the surface of the constitution, ay, sir, upon the house- 
top, a standing and disgraceful spectacle in the eyes of all 
the world. 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 193 


But the benefits (it may be said) of this act of toleration 
will be circumscribed within narrow limits, will be enjoyed 
by only a few individuals—so solemn an instrument as a 
state constitution, should not be altered for the benefit of 
a few. What then? Will you do it when their number 
shall be greater? No. You will then say, that it would be 
dangerous to grant constitutional privileges to so many Jews. 
Sir, the Hebrews of Md., are more entitled now, if not to your 
justice, at least to your sympathies and charity, than they 
will be when the present handful shall become a multitude; 
because they are weaker, more dependent upon your mag- 
nanimity; less able to maintain of themselves the rights of 
freemen. Would you feel the less indignation towards the 
iron-hearted, grasping guardian, because the victim of his 
rapacity was an infant orphan? Oh! no,—you would exe- 
erate him the more, because of the weak and defenceless 
condition of the suffering innocent. 

So should you regard these unfortunate Hebrews. They 
are the political orphans of your state, not made so by their 
follies or their crimes; not by any of the natural and in- 
evitable calamities of life; but orphans by desertion, 
abandoned by their parent—cheated of their birthright— 
nay, even deprived of their legitimacy. 

But, sir, honour! the honour of the state is concerned. 
A nation may be dishonourable in a very small matter—a 
nation may be dishonourable, nay, even cruel, without 
committing a single act of dishonour or cruelty. If a clause 
existed in your constitution, which would subject to stripes 
or imprisonment, every freeman who should flee from a 
foreign land for refuge to your shores—it might happen 
that not a solitary being would suffer himself to be the victim 
of such injustice; but would the nation be any the less dis- 
honourable or cruel? No—because dishonour and cruelty, 
as well as honour and humanity, are in the heart, in the 
intention, not in their external manifestation by outward 
signs. Therefore, although there was not a single Jew 
in Md., the clause which subjected them to oppression 
being in the constitution, the dishonour is as great as it 


194 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


would be if a hundred thousand Jews suffered under its 
tyranny. 

The honour of the state, I repeat it, the honour of the 
state is involved. The people of Md., have gone on for 
many years past, as if they cared nothing about the honour 
of the state, when it was tarnished by themselves. They 
have jealousy enough for the honour of the nation abroad— 
if a foreign frigate fires into an American sloop of war, 
or a foreign government insults an American ambassa- 
dor, how sensitive are we on the occasion. The cry of 
vengeance rings from Dan even unto Beersheba. We are 
ready to put the whole nation in a panoply of offence. But 
a much worse dishonour we will suffer to remain untouched, 
when inflicted by our own hands, upon our own country. 
Yet in my apprehension this is infinitely worse, because, in 
the former case, we being the victims of another’s outrage, 
another shares a great portion of the shame, whereas, in the 
latter case, we bear it all alone. 3 

The next objection which I will notice, is one of a very 
singular character, and yet I have frequently heard it in 
conversation with some of the members of this house. They 
object to this bill, and will not vote for it, because it is only 
a ‘‘Jew bill,’’ and not also a Mohammedan bill—a Gentoo 
bill—in fine, a bill sweeping away at once, every religious 
test from the face of the constitution. If such a bill were 
now before the house, I venture to affirm that some of these 
very individuals would object to it because it was not exclu- 
sively a Jew bill—I am afraid, lest with some, this objection 
is used as a cover to the world for real sentiments, or as a 
quietus upon self-reproach. 

If there are any who sincerely entertain the objection, I 
would ask them, whether, by a universal abolition of the test 
bill, one of the objects to be gained, would be the relief of 
the Hebrews? Why not join in their relief now ?—have you 
charity enough to comprehend the whole multitude of dis- 
cordant faiths in the world—and have you at the same time 
too little for the persecuted Hebrews alone! 

I, sir, am as strongly in favour of the entire abolition of 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 195 


the test as any member of this house can be. Indeed, one 
of the reasons which have urged me to the support of the 
‘‘Jew Bill,’’ is the belief that it would open the door for en- 
tire and unconditional toleration; but I know that I cannot 
obtain that now. Am I, therefore, to suffer my charity to 
grow cold, and fall at once from the very boiling point to 
half a dozen degrees below zero? No; I will keep it warm 
and vivid by exercising it upon the sons of Abraham, I would 
fear that if it should perish now, even a bill for the universal 
abolition of the test would not hereafter be able to restore it 
to existence. 

Sir, I can see many strong reasons, convincing to my mind, 
why the portals of religious freedom should be first opened to 
the Israelite—his religion ranks next to ours—the God of 
the Christian is the God of the Jew. For the knowledge of 
that God, we are indebted to his fathers; that knowledge, like 
the sacred fire of old, was preserved by them from century 
to century, until the power of Omnipotence, through the 
ministration of Jesus Christ, scattered it abroad upon the 
face of the earth, to burn with unextinguishable brightness. 
We owe to them the history of the antediluvian world; we 
owe to them a great portion of the holy Scriptures—above 
all, we owe to them the birth of Jesus Christ. Let them, 
therefore, first enter the temple of religious freedom, and not 
in company with the disciple of Mahomet, or the blood- 
stained worshipper of Juggernaut, whose presence is an 
abomination to the Jew. 

Having thus disposed of these preliminary objections, 
which, if admitted, would close the very door of discussion 
upon us, let us look at those which go to the merits of the 
bill. 

The Jews are unworthy of relief! Why are they so? 
Bring forward your charges in the face of the day; but first 
gather the dispersed of Judah, from the four winds of heaven, 
and assemble them at the bar of this earthly tribunal, where 
mortal man presumes to act as the vicegerent of heaven. 
Sir, as the advocate of this people, I plead to your juris- 
diction. I deny your right to preside over the consciences 


196 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


of men. Ah! but, I hear you say, we have the power, and 
will exercise it. That is true. You have the power, and you 
will exercise it, and we must prove our innocence, or suffer 
the punishment of guilt. 

When a tyrannical parliament had summoned the whole 
American nation at its tribunal bar, to show the cause why 
they should not be deprived of the rights of freemen, the 
immortal Burke stood forward as their champion. He told 
the British parliament that it was hard to draw a bill of 
indictment against a whole people. Were this great man 
now among us, and advocating (as he would advocate) the 
cause of the oppressed Israelites—he would say again: “‘It 
is hard to draw a bill of indictment against a whole people.”’ 
There is nothing like it in the history of the world; there is 
no instance on record of the trial of a whole nation at once, 
excepting that of the American people, before the British 
parliament, and the Hebrew nation, before an American 
tribunal. The cases are alike. The difficulty is the same in 
each: it is, that no such charge can be drawn into any shape, 
that will be consistent with the constitution of a free people, 
or the rights of human nature. This is our argument of 
strength, and if it be true, cannot be resisted. Exhibit your 
charges ! 

The Jews do not believe in Jesus Christ! This cannot be 
disputed as a fact, but it is disputed as a cause of accusation. 
Who made them Jews? The same Being who made you a 
Christian. They had as little control over the destiny which 
made them the sons of Abraham, as you had over that, which 
cast your lot among a Christian people. Born as you are 
in a Christian community, taught no other faith, or taught 
it only as an object of execration, is it wonderful that you 
profess the Christian religion ? 

Born as the Jews are, descendants from the line of 
ancestry, traceable to the first period of the world’s existence, 
all professing the same faith, a faith communicated by God 
himself, in the midst of thundering and lightning upon 
Mount Sinai,—educated in this faith, from their earliest 
infancy, and wedded to it by the cementing power of perse- 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 197 


cution, is it wonderful that they should continue to profess 
it? The wonder would be, if they should burst through the 
mighty mound of circumstances in which they are in- 
trenched, and come over to the camp of Christianity. Sir, 
if they had been born as you were, they would have been 
Christians—if you had been born as they were, you would 
have been Jews. 

When, therefore, you censure the Hebrews for not being 
Christians, you arraign that mighty Being who holds in his 
hands the reins of destiny, and Who, for purposes inscrutable 
to us, has cast their lot in the midst of necessities, which 
compel them to be Jews. It is their fate, it may be their 
misfortune; if so, they are objects of Christian charity, not 
for Christian persecution. Are you still disposed to condemn 
them, because they do not believe in the religion of Jesus 
Christ? I would ask, how many in this Christian community 
of those who are not Jews, are believers in that faith? How 
many in this assembly, I would emphatically ask, how many 
among those who oppose the claims of the Children of Israel? 
You will answer, all. This may be true in one sense—all 
of you may have an historical belief of the existence of Jesus 
Christ, and a theoretical belief in the doctrines which he 
taught—but are you all believers, in the true sense of the 
term? Do you practise what you profess? If you do not, 
then are you in a worse condition than the Jew, who to the 
uttermost of his humble powers, fulfils the law of Moses. 
He lives up to the light and knowledge which he has received 
—you act against that which you profess. You have been 
born in the midst of Christianity—you have imbibed it, I 
had almost said, with your mother’s milk; you have from the 
pulpit, week after week, and in the closet, day by day, 
received line upon line, and precept upon precept: yet you 
wander from the line and disobey the precept. The Jew has 
none of your advantages, and yet he does no worse than you; 
nay, he does better! for the faithful Jew practises Christi- 
anity without professing it—you profess it without practising 
ie 

‘‘Judge not therefore, lest you be judged, for with what- 


198 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


soever measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.”’ 
Whosoever here is without this sin, let him east the first stone. 
If this advice be taken, I am inclined to think that very few 
stones will be thrown; no, not one—for I am confident that 
those who are without this sin, possess too much of the spirit 
of Christianity, to raise the hand of violence against these un- 
fortunate sons of persecuted fathers. 

But you may say, we do not condemn the Jew because he 
disbelieves in a different religion, but because the principles 
of his religion are dangerous in a Christian community. 

I ask, how long have this race of people existed in this 
country ? and when have they manifested that their principles 
were dangerous in a Christian community? Sir, they have 
existed here ever since the first settlement of the American 
colonies, during all which time, nothing of this dangerous 
character have they manifested. They have been as harmless 
as doves—lke lambs before their shearers, they have not 
opened their mouths, even in reproach for the persecutions 
they have received. 

But the religion of that people, it will be said, though 
innocent in private life, is dangerous in the administration 
of government. This supposes the establishment of the 
Jewish religion as the government religion. The object of 
this will is not to do that. If you mean to say, that within 
the limits of possibility, the Jewish religion may become the 
state religion, if it be encouraged by the passage of this bill, 
and therefore you ought to oppose it—I reply, you adopt an 
argument which goes to the exclusion of every religious sect 
in the community—Catholic, Protestant, and Dissenter. 
But you may say that these are Christians, and they would 
not seek any ascendenecy over their fellow Christians. If 
they were to gain it, they would not abuse their authority 
as the Jew would. Sir, this is reasoning against human 
nature, and in the face of history. Cloak religious power 
as you will, you will always discover with it one inseparable 
companion—the disposition to abuse it. 

There is not a religious sect in the world, which has not 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 199 


abused power when it possessed it. Did not the pious Calvin, 
when he held the two-edged sword of civil and religious 
power, stain it with the blood of persecution? Did not the 
devout Presbyterians who fied from the tyranny of British 
intolerance, to build the church of God upon the Rock of 
Plymouth, forget the day of their past calamity, and stain 
even the paradise of hberty, with the blood of martyrs? 
But not to go to past ages, look at England, or rather look 
at Ireland. You there see six millions of Catholics, with 
human hearts in their bosoms, cheated of their birth-right, 
enslaved and trampled upon by the leaden foot of religious 
tyranny. 

You cannot expect more than this from the Jewish religion. 
And yet you have more to fear from every Christian sect 
than from the Jews, because every such sect is more 
numerous, and, therefore, more likely to usurp religious 
power. 

Besides, a Jewish hierarchy can only be supported by the 
laws of Moses. These never can be introduced into this 
country. For, in order to enforce them, there must be a 
temple; that temple must be established at Jerusalem; there 
must be an especial order of priesthood, an order, which, 
since the destruction of the former priesthood, can only be 
established by divine authority. The idea of the establish- 
ment of the Hebrew religion in Md., as the government 
religion, is preposterous in the extreme; it is conjuration too 
weak to terrify even infant apprehension. If this state of 
Md., were the only spot on all the earth that afforded a resting 
place for these wandering sons of Judah, in their pilgrimage 
through all lands, we might fear an innundation—but 


‘<The world is all before them, where to choose 
Their place of rest, and Providence their guide.’’ 


They have, however, chosen one country, as the abiding 
place of their posterity. The Jews of the east look to the 
west—those of the west look to the east, and they all cast 


200 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


their eyes on that sacred spot, where, amid all the sublimities 
of nature, the divine law of Moses was first given to the 
Israelites. That is their place of future rest on earth. 

The last accusation which I shall notice is one of a heinous 
character indeed—The Jews crucified the Saviour of the 
world!—What Jews? Not the Jews of this age or this 
eountry—not the Jews of Md.—The deed was done eighteen 
hundred years ago, and in a period of consummate wicked- 
ness throughout the world. We have divine authority, for 
saying that the sins of fathers shall not be visited upon their 
children later than the third and fourth generation—and 
shall the flame of human vengeance burn for twenty 
centuries ? 

There is not a devout Jew in existence, who does not mourn 
the deed done on Calvary. It was a bloody deed, and 
bloodily has Judah answered it. The generation who 
witnessed the crucifixion, had not passed away, ere the furies 
of fire and sword, famine and pestilence, mingled in the work 
of her destruction. Far and wide, 


‘‘Temple and town went down, nor left a site, 

Chaos of ruins! who shall trace the voice, 

O’er the dark fragments, cast a lunar light, 

And say, here is, or was, where all is doubly night?”’ 


Thousands were slain by the sword—the rest were carried 
into captivity; no age, sex, or condition, was regarded; the 
very name of Judea was blotted from the roll of nations. 
Was not this enough? 

Their descendants, from generation to generation, for 
twenty centuries, have been the victims of a persecution, un- 
paralleled in the history of any other people. In every 
period of the world’s history, in every nation under heaven, 
by every sect, they have been imprisoned, tortured, and 
massacred—sewed up in the skins of wild beasts, and thrown 
to the dogs in Asia—chained to the galling car for life in 
Africa—hurned to death in Spain—flayed alive in Italy— 
fleeced and sentenced to banishment from time to time in 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 201 


England—plunged into the catacombs in France—knouted in 
Russia, or driven to perish in the wilds of Siberia. Is not 
this enough? 

It was only a few years since, that a poor Jew in Polish 
Lithuania, was condemned to be tortured to death on account 
of his religion. They cut off his hands, and then thrusting 
the bleeding stumps into a pot of boiling pitch, called upon 
him to recant. He only exclaimed, O God of Abraham! 
have mercy upon them! O God of Isaac! have mercy 
upon them! O God of Christ! have mercy upon them! and 
then expired. Which of these, Mr. Speaker, was the 
Christian? The record, may I say, of heaven, will bear 
testimony in favour of the Jew. 

Ought not the world to be tired of such scenes? Shall we, 
instead of execrating them, join in the full spirit by which 
they are prompted? We join in this spirit, if we deny them 
the rights of freemen—the unalienable rights of human 
nature. We do deny them these rights when we refuse to 
pass the bill now upon your table. By the constitution of 
our, and their country, by the constitution of human nature, 
are they entitled to those civil and religious privileges, which 
this bill is intended to confer upon them. 

As the data upon which I found this position, I refer you 
to the immortal instrument which preserved to us the like 
privileges, when the hand of foreign domination was raised 
to erush them. JI mean the charter of our independence. 
‘“We hold these truths to be self-evident—that all men are 
created equal’’:—the Jews are men; therefore, created your 
equals—but do you treat them as such? No. For you say, 
they are unworthy to sit by your side in the administration 
of a free government.—‘And endowed with certain in- 
alienable rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness.’’ But you have curtailed them in 
their liberty—you have hindered them in their pursuit of 
happiness; the best of ali kinds of liberty, religious liberty ; 
and the purest of all sorts of happiness, eternal happiness. 
‘‘For the preservation of these, governments are instituted 
among men.’’—But your government is instituted for their 


202 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


destruction. You have put them under the ban of the 
republic. ‘‘Deriving their just power from the consent of 
the governed.’’ They never gave you power to deprive them 
of their civil and religious privileges. The people of Md., 
did not surrender to the convention who framed their consti- 
tution the right to control their consciences. They could not 
surrender it, because it was an inalienable right. 

Sir, do you not acknowledge the force of this instrument? 
Your articles of confederation are founded upon it, and your 
existence as a state in the great Union, is founded on the 
articles of confederation. It is a component part of the 
constitution of that Union, and endowed with its power. In 
opposition to every state enactment, this power is omnipo- 
tent. The clause therefore, denying civil and religious 
freedom to the Jews, is expunged from your constitution. 
The bill now on your table gives to that people no new rights, 
it merely preserves to them rights which are immutably and 
inalienably theirs. 

Sir, if you continue to enforce this outlawed clause of 
‘your constitution, you rear up with the hand of arbitrary 
power, that worst of all monsters, a religious hierachy. Do 
not the words frighten you, and yet they are true. The 
principles upon which you uphold even the pure Christian 
religion, to the exclusion of every other, are the principles 
which uphold the inquisitorial government of Spain, and the 
Episcopal hierarchy of England. The right to put up one 
religion, is the right to put down another—the right to put 
down one, is the right to put down all; and the right to put 
down all, is the right to build up one upon their ruins. The 
right to build up or pull down in one particular, involves the 
right to do so in all; and you may, therefore, whenever you 
choose it, establish a Presbyterian Church government, an 
Episcopalian Church government, or any other church goy- 
ernment, upon the ruins of every other religious society ; nay, 
upon the ruins of civil government itself. 

In order to prevent these terrible consequences, let us vote 
for the bill now upon the table. Let us pronounce a verdict 
of not guilty in favour of the persecuted sons of Abraham. 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 203 


It will be registered in heaven—the recording angel will drop 
a tear of joy, as he notes it down, and all the melody of 
heaven will join in hallelujahs on the event. 

Some gentlemen are angry with this bill, and will not vote 
for it, because it has taken up so much of the time of the 
House. Sir, the only way to get rid of this bill, is to vote for 
it—otherwise, it will return upon you again; it is invulnerable 
and immortal; cut off one head, another will rise in its stead. 
Next to the dishonour of suffering this stain upon our consti- 
tution, would be the ignominy we should suffer, should it 
be said, with truth, that no one in the legislature of Md., could 
be found, bold and honest enough, to defend the cause of 
religious toleration. I will guarantee, that one gentleman, at 
least, will do all he can to prevent so foul a tarnish on our 
name and character. Should it please the caprice of the 
people to remove him from the councils of the nation, or the 
wisdom of Providence to call him to a better world, I 
guarantee that another will succeed him, though he will be 
little able to supply his place. 

I beg pardon of the gentleman from Washington for thus 
introducing him to the House. I could not do otherwise, 
because his name is identified with the ‘‘Jew Bill.’’ You can- 
not think of the one without thinking of the other—he was an 
early champion in the cause; Atlas-like, he bore it upon his 
shoulders at a time when it was too heavy for all other men 
—it fell—he raised it—it fell again—he raised it again 
and again. Like Sisyphus, he was compelled alternately, to 
roll up the stone, and suffer its recoil. The enemies of 
religious freedom in Washington, withdrew from him their 
support, and he ceased to be a member of this House. Even . 
then, he continued to labour in the cause. He once more 
comes into the hall of legislation, and his very first act is to 
bring the ‘‘ Jew Bill’”’ before the house! Let him consummate 
the work—He began it, it is his right to end it. Let him be 
both Alpha and Omega. I would pray for the stamp of 
immortality on what I have said, merely to perpetuate his 
glory.’’ 

In order that the measure become a law, it was necessary 


204 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


to have it confirmed at the next session. This was accord- 
ingly done at the December session of 1825. On January 
5, 1826 (Laws of 1825) the bill was introduced. It was 
passed February 26, 1826. 

The Act follows :-— 

Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Mary- 
land, that every citizen of this state professing the Jewish 
Religion, and who shall hereafter be appointed to any office 
or public trust under the State of Maryland, shall in addition 
to the oaths required to be taken by the constitution and laws 
of the State or of the United States, make and subscribe a 
declaration of his belief in a future state of rewards and 
punishments, in the stead of the declaration now required by 
the constitution and form of government of this state. 

See. 2. Be it enacted, that the several clauses and sections 
of the declaration of rights, constitutional and form of 
government, and every part of any law of this state contrary 
to the provisions of this act, so far as respects the sect of 
people aforesaid, shall be, and the same is hereby declared to 
be repealed and annulled on the confirmation hereof. 

See. 3. And be it enacted, that if this act shall be confirmed 
by the General Assembly of Maryland, after the next election 
of delegates in the first session after such new election as the 
constitution and form of government directs, in such ease 
this act and the alterations of the said constitution and form 
of government shall constitute and be valued as a part of the 
said constitution and form of government to all intents and 
purposes, anything therein contained to the contrary not 
withstanding. 

Niles Register under date of January 16, 1826, discussing 
the passage of the ‘‘ Jew Bill’’ said: 

‘“We have already announced that the bill for the relief of 
the Jews in Maryland was finally confirmed in the legislature 
of Maryland on Thursday last, and is now a law of the State. 

After the bill had been read a second time, on Thursday 
last, and was ready to be put on its passage, Mr. Kennedy 
of Washington, rose and observed, that it was not his intention 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 205 


to take up the precious time of the House with a set speech on 
this occasion; that he did not speak by note, and trusted the 
House would bear him with patience even if he wandered 
widely. The present question, he said, had often been 
agitated on the floor of this House. From 1801 until the 
present day, it has been presented to the legislature, and its 
friends had gradually increased, and it now came before this 
House under more favourable auspices than it ever had done 
before. The bill had been passed at the last session by both 
Houses, and at the present session it had again passed the 
Senate, and he understood that only a single no was heard 
in that honourable body when the vote was taken. 

Mr. Kennedy said that he did not claim any honour for 
having brought the subject before the legislature, for it was 
not due to him, it was due to another; * for in the year 1817, 
often as he had read the constitution, he was not aware that 
any citizen of Maryland was rendered ineligible to office, on 
account of his religious principles. 

It is true that in 1818 a bill similar to the present, was: 
brought before this House by him, and was rejected, it was 
again brought forward in 1819 and 1820, and a bill to abolish 
the religious test entirely, passed both branches of the legis- 
lature in 1822, that bill he should long remember, for it left 
him at home; yet he did not regret the course he had then 
pursued—nor would he regret it if it had even exiled him from 
publie life forever. 

Mr. Kennedy said and challenged contradictions on this 
point, that Maryland was the only state in the Union where 
Jews were excluded from ‘‘participation in civil office, with 
the rest of their fellow citizens on account of their religious 
belief.’? That in Massachusetts where a convention was 
called a few years ago, the chief alteration made in their 
constitution, was an entire abolition of the religious test. 
That the Constitution of the United States recognized the 


* We understand Mr. Kennedy here alluded to the late much re- 
spected and worthy Jeremiah Sullivan, Esq., formerly of Baltimore 
City, who first mentioned the subject to him. 


206 THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 


same principles, and that this had been done by an unani- 
mous vote of those sages and patriots who framed the 
constitution. 

Mr. Kennedy said that the sweetest joy to the parents, and 
he well knew a parent’s feeling, was to see a well beloved 
son rise into public notice, distinguished by his virtues and 
talents. But how was it in Maryland ?—Except you believe 
in a particular creed, your son, though ever so highly qualified 
for office, could not hold any without being an apostate from 
the religion of his fathers, and would not said parents in the 
bitterness of their hearts be almost ready to curse Maryland. 

Instances have already occurred where a native born citizen 
of Maryland could not practice at the bar as an attorney, could 
not command a company of militia, though unanimously 
elected, because he could not subscribe what in his heart he 
did not believe. 

An awful responsibility, he observed, rested,on the members 
of this House, and he begged them to pause and reflect—it was 
in their power to put this question at rest forever—it was in 
their power to have their names recorded and handed down to 
posterity, as the friends of civil and religious liberty ; and that 
they were among those who professed as well as practiced the 
great and good precept of ‘‘doing unto others what it was 
their wish others should do unto them.”’ 

Mr. Tyson followed Mr. Kennedy on the same side. No 
person spoke in opposition. The following are the yeas and 
nays :— 

AFFIRMATIVE—Messrs. Semmes (Speaker), Kilgour, 
Milliard, Hawkins, Gough, Welch, Boon, Wickes, Maxey, 
Estep, Beckett, Brooke, Dalrymple, Smith, Chapman, Roger- 
son, Edelen, Worthington, McCulloch, Spencer, Mills, 
Teackle, Eecleston, Beall, Duvall, Banette, Stevens, Sudler, 
Cockey, Barnes, Sappington, Fanguhar, Williams, Hall, How- 
ard, Tyson, Kennedy, Lansdale, Lee, Hughes, Watson, Perry, 
Rud, Blair, Armstrong—45. 

NEGATIVE—Messrs. Harris, Gantt, Lintchicum, Garner, 
Shaw, Turner, Goldsborough, Banning, E. Jones, B. I. Jones, 


THE PASSAGE OF THE JEW BILL 207 


Ennalls, Broughan, Douglass, Thomas, Grubb, Gilpin, Har- 
lan, Ridout, Speed, Ridgaway, Hopper, Hooper, Parker, Mit- 
chell, J. Montgomery, Potter, Keene, Saulsbury, Hughlet, 
Merrick, Kershner, Jacques, Jr.—82. 


THE END 


h VE orate ‘ Ke 4.8%, ih: brine? Bly 





Ve ther ar X 


Le Atay a aaron ge ting 


eae vy OY a hee Hse 


= of i~ ‘' — 
Neu taly: USER ie Pas 


1 \ 5 ‘ 
4 ~y ’ 
) 
3 f yy 
a 
’ : a $ 
‘ ‘ 
iT 
a : 
+? i 4 \ 
+ ; 4 4 
1 
7 La 
i 
. 0 
é 
Ls . 
t's Nae: 
i] ol - 
f ye 
ie 
ro 
‘ 
A. y ; 
wh igi Pte ‘ 4d 
j oa | “wn 
em Ve ‘. 
nl aM r , 
' i a ,. 
a t 
i 4, , 
J dj 
' 4 Bus 
‘ # 
ar 
{ 3% 
* 
PF \ ‘ 
i - \ } ' 
’ { ww 
{ 
j 
\ 
ri 
RP oy 
A ; 
' ' 
} 
? « 
} ay 
a 1. wy , 
i 
: P 2) , 
*% a j 
aS ae | , . 
‘ ‘ 
~ ¥ it 
‘ 
, 
whew Iq ‘ j 
Fa a) > yao ily de 
ye emen te ‘ i 
t 
iv 
{..s os i i 
: i : MD i Ps 
ee) ee ney ea 
f bb ) fad ne f . ) . 
i os ee or iirs 
R A a) r,.. } 
re Se PRL ae eA Ss 4 
» ry 7.o 
. t 
a ? 
; y ,\ 
- bd id 
é 
, oti 
f - 
4 j 
i iy \ 
‘2 < oie Oe 
4 
4. é aX, ‘9 if 
) } Lo 
' 7 é f 5 A ri > 
i i. a tds ; ; 
} ' , 
1 i : ‘“ pal 
i Lai F i Ll 4 vy , 
ia 1 ' = 11 


INDEX 


A 


Annapolis charter conferred suf- 
frage on property owners, 5 


B 


Baltimore Hebrew Congregation, 
Federalist oppose incorpora- 
tion, 45 

Memorial to incorporate, 44 

Baltimore directory of 1796 lists 
Jewish residents, 12 

Bible, Reading of King James 
version in schools, 64, 66 

Bible school law declared consti- 
tutional in many states, 66 

Bill of Rights gave religious lib- 
erty only to Christians, 9 

Blue laws see Sunday observance 

Bowles, James H., Opposes Ken- 
nedy’s election, 32 

Breckenridge, Judge H. M., speech 
on abolishing religious tests, 
108-127 


C 


Catholics, J. I. Cohen defends in 
letter to ““National Advocate,” 
52 
Prescribed from office and fran- 
chise, 6, 7, 151 
Cemeteries see Etting burial 
ground; Jewish cemetery 
Charitable societies established, 
56, 57 
Children of Israel in Maryland by 
Kennedy, 23 
Christian Church in New Orleans 
redeemed by a Jew, 186 
Church and state forever separate, 
67 
Citizenship, Conferred on Jews by 
naturalization law, 9 
Efforts of Kennedy to secure 
equality of, 14, 21, 23, 27 
Membership in Episcopal church 
requisite for, 5, 151 


209 


Memorial before General Assem- 
bly of 1823, 28-31 
Civil liberty, Committee of House 
of Delegates report on extend- 
ing, 70-78 
Cohen, Benjamin I., Captain of 
Marion Corps, 174 
Cohen, Jacob I., Defends Catholic 
attitude on religious tests, 52 
Filled many public offices, 44, 47 
Letter to KE. S. Thomas regarding 
Jew bill, 48 
Constitution of the State gives 
right to amend its text, 192 
Of 1867 prescribes oath of office 
requiring belief in God, 60 
Pronounced perfect, 35 
Constitution of the U. S. forbids 
religious tests, 143, 144, 167 
Cordia, Hester, Early settler, 2 


D 


Debates in General Assembly on 
civil and religious disabilities 
of the Jews, 69 

de Cates Isaac, Early settler, 


de Costa, Mathias, Early settler, 2 
de Sousa, Mathias, Early settler, 
Zz, 


Drury, Ignatius, Supports Ken- 
nedy in election contest, 32 


E 


Established Church made church 
of the Colony, 6 
Etting, Reuben, made U. S. Mar- 
shal, 54 
Etting, Solomon, Death of, 55 
Elected member of Baltimore 
City Council, 44 
Life in Baltimore, 54 
Petition for right to hold office, 
10; 13 
Ktting burial ground, 55 
Evidence of slaves and persons be- 
lieving in God, 59 


210 


F 


Fitzherbert, Father, Charged with 
practising his religion, 5 
Fereira, David, Early settler, 2 


G 


Gabby, Joseph, Opposes Kennedy’s 
election, 32 

Galloway, Benjamin, Opposes Ken- 
nedy’s election, 32, 33 

Grant, President U. S., Keep 
church and state separate, 67 

Gratz, Bernard, Petition for right 
to hold office, 10 


HH 


Hall, T. B., Supports Kennedy in 
election contest, 32 

Hart, Jacob, Loan to Lafayette, 11 

Henry, Mr., Attempted expulsion 
from North Carolina legisla- 
ture, 124 


I 


Immigration from Germany, 46 _ 
Irish servants, Duty of 20 shil- 
lings on, 7, 151 


J 


Jew bill see Religious test 

Jewish cemetery, 54 

Johnson, Reverdy, Fathers bill for 
toleration, 36 

Judefind vs. Maryland, 63 


K 


Kennedy, Thomas, Children of Is- 

rael in Maryland, 23 

Committee report on Jewish 
equality in citizenship, 21, 23, 
27-70 

Comes to America, 16, 17, 41-43 

Dedicatory address to his par- 
ents, 18, 20 

Defeated for re-election, 32, 33, 
34, 135 

Death of, 39 

Establishes Hagerstown Mail, 39 

Inspired by French Revolution, 
70 


Inspired by Jefferson’s religious 
liberty statutes of 1785, 67 


INDEX 


Monument erected by Maryland 
Order of Brith Sholom, 41 
Poems of toleration, 58 
Speech at 1818 General Assembly 
in favor of Jew bill, 79-107 
At 1820 General Assembly 
in favor of Jew bill, 128- 
132 
At 1824 General Assembly in 
favor of Jew bill, 138-164 
Sullivan calls attention to Jews 
ineligibility to office, 205 
Kellar, Thomas, Supports Kennedy 
in election contest, 32 
Kilgour vs. Wills on Sunday ob- 
servance, 64 


L 


Leat, Jacob, Early settler, 2 
LeCompte, Opposes abolishing re- 
ligious test for Jews, 133 
Lumbrozo, Jacob, Trial for ques- 
tioning divinity of Christ, 
3-4 
M 

McMahon, John V. L., Defends 
Jew bill, 135 

Maryland only state to exclude 
Jews from all offices, 103 

Massachusetts excluded Jews from 
various offices, 103 

Merrick, Joseph I., Opposes Ken- 
nedy’s election, 32 

Mexican War, Volunteer regiment 
formed, 56, 57 

Ministers may not serve in Gen- 
eral Assembly, 60 


N 


Naturalization law of U. S. made 
Jews citizens, 9 

New York State excludes Roman 
Catholics, 101, 102 

Niles Register records passage of 
Jew bill, 204-206 


O 


Oath of office prescribed by Con- 
stitution of 1867, 60 

Office holding in State, Assembly 
petitioned for right, 10 

Office under Federal government 
held by Jews, 9 


INDEX 


Es 
Protestants oppress Catholics, 5-8; 
150-153 
R 


Religion, Practise not restricted 
by U. 8. Constitution, 65 
Religious freedom urged by peo- 
ple outside the State, 36 
Religious test; Bill to abolish, 


77-78; 204 
Vote on final passage, 37, 
206-7 


Breckenridge’s speech to abol- 
ish, 108-127 

Committee report on, 70-78 

Excluded by Revolutionary Con- 
gress from Constitution, 167 

For Catholics, 153 

Forbidden by U. S. Constitution, 
104, 143, 144 

Fox and Pitt express disap- 
proval of, 183 

Kennedy’s speech to abolish, 
79-107; 128-132; 138-164 

LeCompte opposes abolishing, 
133 


Oath of 1715 and 1716, 5 - 

Originated in 1716, 6, 150 

Tyson’s speech to abolish, 191- 
203 

Vote on permission to introduce 
bill to abolish, 135 

Washington would 
132 

Worthington’s speech to abolish, 

165-191 


abolish, 


211 


Revolutionary War, Money sub- 
scribed, 12 


S 


Sabbath not legally recognized, 62, 
63, 64 

Slaves, Evidence accepted, 59 

Sullivan, Jeremiah, Calls Ken- 
nedy’s attention to Jews in- 
eligibility to office, 205 

Sunday observance, 60, 61, 62, 63 


T 


Toleration; Act of 1649, 1, 3 
Made perpetual in 1676, 6 
Modified in 1723, 6 
Poems by Kennedy, 58 

Tyson, John S., Speech defending 

Jew bill, 191-203 


U 


United States Constitution forbids 
religious test, 104 


W 
Washington, Mr. (Mont. co.), 
Would abolish all religious 
tests, 132 
Washington, George, Letters to 
Hebrew congregations, 175, 
177, 180 


Washington (D. C.) in 1796, 17 
Witnesses; Oath, 60 
Slaves and persons believing in 
God, 59 
Worthington, J. W. D., Speech de- 
fending Jew bill, 165-191 





as ; f "hips of ath 
Pile 4 : a “ih & Weyl? We yan a at Meand Hoek 
ha ih Po 5.03 *, Ee Va cc A eae ee a 


12: o raged 4at anita 
















oy tat 


es 


a 
y tid 
/ Y, 
’ ‘ | ae »” 
my si? ‘ I ion $03 5 
if? oF iv eo 
Dae A cad 
4 “4 ok ¢ 
“4 : he ies 
i ' ’ . 4 ie} 
\ UP ’ G \ 
’ ‘ , 
‘ * ia 
‘ 1 sey . 
L ar ; ay 
474% “ é y 
oa A 
re ‘ i . Py 
j ; ¥ * gi ah i id ‘ 
4 NO | gh . 4 om | 
n j - rely Wb el sa hs. rs we ‘ 
my 7 «Tht ; : - 
: A a “Tee : 


hut i pee Oey ¢) if sn abe i 
: } : sayy hen, * v, i ] ; rE (Bre &: Rte hah git 
ct al \ Lae Mi Mes shit, On 





‘ 
' ' 
f{ j 
' | f 1 ¥ 
— 
Z 
P ry 
F * Pg 
Py ar 
hay * 
; ' 
ay 
rf er, 
: aE Pb 
- ¥ /~ 
e 
’ 
"age 


a4 ty 


We yet 


fi Palit Ve iy 
op et 
a py 


a vs 


7% 
7 
af 
i] 





p 
) 


- 


) ¥ aN A 
aE 
<n e 


. 
vaio 


Sane 
oe 
eee. 
un 


D 2 th \ +) is 
\ . x BANS Ck ANN 
PA ARNE MARA 
‘) mM wie iy 
wie i ay EROT 
OR ‘ i : 


eins ee 
* ye 
eee 


nae 


A 


Sar 
ia ages 
Wes 
ohn 


ane 
SP tone 
aon 


ee 


A 
Sh 


¥ é 


is 
Rs x M 


SONG 
En A 
, BANS £9 aN » 
Ni i ReMeOy 
Ts eat : 


: 


on 


Ooo? 
ota 


we 


Sate 
For oo mie ene are, 
Soon 
we 


oe, 
We. 
iam 


en, 
ae 


ate 5 
" 
j Dantan 

Be 


eS 


rate 


Ad) 
axe HO 
<s 
ae 


— 


eee, 
7 
Pn tat = 
a) Vite 
sernat ree eater 
~ = owe 
nee Le 


ae 
ere, 
a 


~ 
ve 
ne: 


= 


x. 


PERT 
~~, 
em 
= 


meee 


* 


ee! 


en 


a 


ris 


en 


Ah Wd rit 
tS 


aks 


= 
S 





